Boston Marathon Bombs

Happily, it looks like only a few folks got killed when two bombs went off near the finish of the Boston Marathon today. That's a tragic situation. I'm not at all pleased about those deaths, the dozens who were injured, and those whose injuries may be permanent or fatal.

But it could have been much worse.

I'm not looking forward to the all-but-inevitable 'this is the fault of [insert favorite bogeyman]' pronouncements.


(FoxNews.com, used w/o permission)
"Multiple casualties reported after two explosions at Boston Marathon" (FoxNews.com)

I plan to keep following news: particularly after the dust settles, literally and metaphorically, and some facts start emerging.

Related posts:

• "An Act of Terrorism in Colorado, Sort of"
  (April 27, 2011)
• "New York City's Time Square: A Bomb, a Vietnam Vet, Electricity, and Congress"
  (May 2, 2010)
• "Who Needs Facts? Cultural Assumptions and Politics"
  (July 24, 2009)
• "Anthrax Letters: Dotting the 'I's, Crossing the 'T's"
  (September 17, 2008)
• "Cool Heads, Lukewarm Brains, And Dr. Haneef"
  (July 30, 2007)

In the news:

• "At least 2 dead, dozens injured after two bombs explode at Boston Marathon"
  The Associated Press, FoxNews.com (April 15, 2013)
• "Boston Marathon hit by explosions"
  BBC News (April15, 2013, 4:46 p.m. EDT)
• "Two blasts hit Boston Marathon finish line, at least two killed"
  Scott Malone, Tim McLaughlin, Reuters (April 15, 2013, 4:59 p.m. EDT)

Not-So-Good News from Iraq: Arrest Warrant; Debatable Confessions, and Politics

American troops are moving out of Iraq. Which may or may not be something that the current administration will want folks to remember next November.

I'd be a whole lot more happy to see Iraq's new lot of leaders pass another milestone, if it weren't for something I read in today's news.

By the way, I've noticed a change in news coverage over the last several years. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but reporters and editors seem to have finally realized that The Masses aren't quite the gullible ignoramuses - - - and I'll get back to that.

On a more immediate and serious note, Iraq's politics are in the news again:

"Arrest warrant issued for Iraqi vice president"
Joamana Karadsheh, CNN (December 19, 2011)

"An Iraqi investigative committee issued an arrest warrant Monday for Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, who is accused of orchestrating bombing attacks.

"The committee of five judges issued the warrant under Article 4 of the country's anti-terrorism law.

"The Interior Ministry, at a news conference, showed what it called confession videos from people identified as security guards for al-Hashimi, the country's Sunni vice president. In the videos, the men described various occasions in which they purportedly carried out attacks under direct orders from al-Hashimi...."

Bombs, Videos, and News

Iraq's Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi may be guilty of ordering terrorist attacks on people in his own country. Or not.

I really don't know.

What I'm fairly certain about is:

• Bombs went off in Iraq
  • And people died
• Someone made videos, purportedly
  • Featuring men who
    • Worked for the Vice President
    • Confessed to serious crimes
    • Said the Vice President was the mastermind

The videos are real enough. CNN says they've been shown at a news conference, and I'm inclined to believe that assertion.

Bombings in Iraq have been in the news. People have reportedly died. Again, I'm inclined to believe the assertions.

Confessions, Coercion, and Removing the Opposition

As for whether the new videos are an example of convincing acting, coerced confessions, or something else? Back to that CNN article:

"...One man said he carried out assassination attempts using roadside bombs and guns with silencers. He said some orders came from the vice president and some came through the director of his office. The man also alleged that he and others were told that if they didn't carry out the attacks, their families would be killed.

"CNN could not immediately confirm that the men in the videos were bodyguards for al-Hashimi...."
(CNN)

Hats off to CNN: like quite a few other mainstream news outlets, they're apparently learning that

• Being told something is true doesn't mean that it really happened
• It's a good idea to let readers know what is
  • An unsubstantiated claim
  • An assertion that someone verified

Like I said before, I don't know whether the Iraqi Vice President is guilty or not. I do think these confessions popped up at a very convenient time for folks who plausibly might want Tariq al-Hashimi out of the way. If al-Hashimi is captured by his political enemies, I hope that he doesn't 'commit suicide.' Or simply disappear.

Iraq, Politics, and All That

I'll say this for the last few American elections: nobody's tried to finger a major candidate for personally ordering a hit. In a way, that's a tribute to the moral fiber of America's political community.

There's another election coming up, and I hope that American politicos continue to limit themselves to weirdly emotional appeals; mudslinging, ballot box stuffing, and crackpot legal shenanigans when they lose, anyway.

On the whole, I'd rather live in America than anywhere else in the world: but perfect this country isn't.

Getting back to Iraq, CNN, and what could be a really messy situation:

"...Three of the vice president's security guards were detained earlier this month.

"Over the past few days, [Iraqi Vice President] al-Hashimi's office told CNN it feared that his three guards would be forced to make false confessions.

"Confession videos in Iraq have been controversial. Human rights groups have reported previously on allegedly forced confessions...."
(CNN)

If al-Hashimi has been arranging premature deaths for personal gain, what his office said might be an effort to reduce damage from anticipated confessions.

Or, al-Hashimi's staff may have been genuinely - and legitimately - concerned for the welfare of the guards.

Confession? Yeah: Me an' the Boys'll Get a Confession For Ya

"...Ali al-Mussawi, media adviser to Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said over the weekend that confessions would link the Sunni vice president to bombings...."
(CNN)

Maybe the Iraqi Prime Minister's media chap simply had confidence that Iraq's judicial officials would guide those guards down the path of wisdom. And that, filled with enlightenment, they would willingly acknowledge their past deeds.

Or maybe the Prime Minister's media office figured that, one way or another, there would be video of a confession to show at the news conference.

Again: I really don't know what's behind that arrest warrant. But I think it's a too convenient for his political enemies than I find comfortable. Back to CNN:

"...The arrest warrant Monday came amid a political crisis and growing sectarian tensions in Baghdad that erupted just as the last U.S. soldiers exited Iraq over the weekend.

"Iraqiya, a powerful political bloc that draws support largely from Sunni and more secular Iraqis, said it was boycotting Parliament, a move that threatens to shatter Iraq's fragile power-sharing government.

"The move pits the largely Sunni and secular coalition against the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

"Iraqiya contends al-Maliki is trying to amass dictatorial power, and many believe al-Maliki was simply waiting for the Americans to leave before making his move...."
(CNN)

I don't envy folks who are honestly working to sort out the mess left by Saddam Hussein's decades in power. They've got hotheads to deal with coming in from several directions: Sunnis, Shiites. And, up north, Kurds:

"...Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said Monday, 'I hope there wasn't a political influence in this arrest warrant, but in Iraq there has been always a political influence.'

" 'This is very upsetting and confusing,' Othman said, adding that if the accusations are true, then al-Hashimi 'should be brought to justice.'..."
(CNN)

I've been over this sort of thing before:

• "Pakistan, India, Mumbai, Nuclear Weapons, and Pashtunistan: Simple This Isn't"
  (December 27, 2008)
• "Turkey, Iraq, and Kurdistan"
  (October 16, 2007)

'The Masses,' Assumptions, and Getting a Grip

Here's where I get back to reporters, editors, and assumptions about 'gullible ignoramuses.' Briefly, I think that North America's coastal cultures have cherished beliefs that just aren't true:

"Six Ignorant Stereotypes About Middle America"
Paul Jankowski, Entrepreneurs, Forbes (October 5, 2011)

"What do you think of when you hear 'Heartland', 'the South' or 'Middle America'? If you're like a lot of people I know on the coasts, the first things that come to mind are usually not positive.

"This is a real quote from a marketing exec in New York City: 'I think the Heartland is a nice place to raise children. People are nice, but they're dumb, overweight, and gullible. They wear tacky clothing and jewelry. They're racist, unworldly, and dumb.'

"If you agree with the quote above, you need to get out a little more. Stereotypes exist for a reason, but if you’re trying to build a brand and engage consumers at a deep level, oversimplifications will hurt your cause. Stereotypes, taken to cynical extremes, are big-time brand killers...."
(Originally quoted in footnote 1, "My Take on the News: Jingle Bells, Jangled Nerves, and Good Advice," A Catholic Citizen in America (December 16, 2011))

I live in a state that's north of the 'flyover states,' have a counter-cultural view of folks living outside major metropolitan areas, and I've been over that before, too:

• "Small Town Hicks and Sophisticated Urbanites: A Reality Check"
  (November 9, 2009)
• "The New York Times, Insularity, and Assumptions"
  (October 21, 2008)

Other related posts:

• Iraq
  • "Another Big Bomb in Baghdad"
    (October 26, 2009)
  • "Using a Kid to Bomb a Mosque: Non-Western Cultural Values, Just Plain Evil, or Something Else?"
    (June 12, 2009)
  • "Good News from Iraq: Voter Fraud and Verbal Attacks on American Leaders"
    (February 15, 2009)
  • "Abu Ayyub al-Masri Free: Some Other Guy Arrested"
    (May 9, 2008)
  • "Abu Ayyub al-Masri: Captured (Again), Maybe, This Time in Mosul"
    (May 9, 2008)
• Getting a grip
  • "Marines Abandon Fallujah!!! (Or, Let's Keep Quiet About This)"
    (October 17, 2008)
  • "Army Report: Big Mistakes in Iraq!"
    (June 30, 2008)
    Particularly
    • Big Iraq Mistakes Report Creates Big Dilemma
  • "Iraq, Elections, the Usual News, and Kids With Inky Fingers"
    (March 7, 2010)
  • "Here Come the Weird Words: Election's Coming Up!"
    (December 14, 2007)
  • "Stressed-Out by Iraq? You're Not the Only One"
    (September 16, 2007)
• Abu Gharaib and all that
  • "Infected Killer Robots! Unstoppable Virus!! MILITARY DENIAL!!!!!!!!!? No, not exactly"
    (October 8, 2011)
  • "A Chilly Cell, the AP, the CIA, and Emotions"
    (March 28, 2010)
  • "Haditha, Iraq; My Lai, Vietnam: This Isn't the Good Old Days"
    (July 13, 2008)
  • "A Marine, A Puppy, and Serious Abuse: 'It Must be Real: I Saw it on YouTube!' "
    (March 4, 2008)
    Particularly
    • After Word: My Lai and Abu Ghraib, Perception and Reality
  • "Moral Equivalence, Prisoners, and Al Qaeda"
    (July 21, 2007)

Libya, an International Coalition, the United Nations, and Getting a Grip

This isn't, as I've said often, a political blog. But, like it or not, politics is involved in the decision-making process of countries. Most countries, anyway.

Which is why I bring up 'political' topics sometimes.

But, again, this isn't a political blog. Not in the sense that I claim that one person or party is always right - and that everybody who disagrees is

• Stupid
• A Traitor
  
• One of those
  • Tools of the military-industrial complex
  • Commie 5th columnists
  • Shape-shifting, space-alien lizard men

Or something even more imaginative. (February 8, 2009)

Libya, Diplomacy, and a Tale of Two Presidents

An American president leads a coalition of nations including:

• Canada
• France
• Italy
• Qatar
• The United Kingdom
  (Scoop News)

I've heard it discussed on television news as a wise and prudent diplomatic move by a knowledgeable leader.

To a limited extent, I can agree with that. Let's look at another administration.

An American president leads a coalition of nations including:

• Albania
• Armenia
• Australia
• Azerbaijan
• Bosnia-Herzegovina
• Bulgaria
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• El Salvador
• Estonia
• Fiji (though UNAMI)
• Georgia
• Hungary (through NATO or UNAMI, and may never have sent troops before 'withdrawing' them in 2004)
• Iceland (through NATO, a training mission)
• Japan
• Kazakhstan
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Macedonia
• Moldova
• Mongolia
• Poland
• Portugal
• Romania
• Singapore
• Slovenia (through NATO, a training mission)
• South Korea
• Turkey (through NATO, a training mission)
• the Ukraine
• the United Kingdom
  (August 9, 2007)

This "unilateral" action threatened to sink America in a "quagmire." (August 9, 2007) Some of America's serious thinkers said so.

Well, that was different.

Libya, Diplomacy, Common Sense, and Business as Usual

I'm an American citizen, eligible to vote, and take civic duty seriously. Every two years I wade through the usual slogans, weird claims, and assorted flavors of hot air: and try to pick candidates I think are least-unlike what I'd like to see elected.

I didn't vote for the current American president: but I don't think he's evil incarnate, either. I even think he's made sense now and again.

Like this week, adding America's abilities to an international coalition that might prevent the Libyan colonel from killing more of his subjects.

Do I think

• The American president can do no wrong?
  • Of course not.
• The American president never does anything right?
  • Of course not
    • I'm not running for office, or working for someone who is
      • And that's another topic
• It was a good idea to work with an international coalition, when using military force against a dictator?
  • Yes
    • I thought it was a good idea when a previous administration took that approach
    • I haven't changed my mind

Why a Coalition?

Working under a United Nations Security Council resolution, with a coalition of nations - including at least one in the Middle East - makes good sense, in my opinion.

The Libyan colonel could, if America was 'going it alone' against his efforts to kill people who don't agree, claim that the evil Americans had launched a conquest of Libya. And that the military action was an unprovoked attack on Libya, the Middle East, and Islam.

Quite a few folks would, I think, buy that line.

The colonel may take that line, anyway: but it's going to be a harder sell, with the armed forces of so many countries involved.

Does this mean that I think the American president did everything right? No. That would be - unlikely, to put it mildly. Perfection and human nature are a somewhat unlikely mix - and that's almost another topic.

For starters, in an ideal situation - the president would have gotten this action going a lot sooner. Ideally.

Earlier today, I heard someone say "the perfect is the enemy of the 'it'll do.' "

A Few Predictions

I'd like to be wrong about this: but I'm pretty sure that coalition attacks on Libya will kill some civilians. Some of those dead bodies will be people who really were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or - willingly or not - deliberately set themselves up to be killed when military targets were hit.

War, as I'll say again, isn't nice. Things get broken and people get killed.

But I'm not quite nice enough to wish that the Libyan colonel's enforcers were free to kill folks in Benghazi. More folks, actually.

I think it's possible that some of the dead bodies will be folks who said that the colonel wasn't a good leader - or members of their families. It'd be a practical application of the old 'killing two birds with one stone' principle.

Excerpts from the News

"Thousands of Libyans packed into Muammar Gaddafi's heavily fortified Tripoli compound on Saturday to form a human shield against possible air strikes by allied forces.

"Fireworks erupted into the night sky and people fired defiant shots into the air at the compound after allied warplanes went into action in eastern Libya to stop the Libyan leader's forces attacking the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

"Libyans from all walks of life streamed into the Bab Al-Aziziyah compound, shouting slogans and holding portraits of Gaddafi. Loudspeakers boomed songs praising the leader...."
(Reuters Africa)

---

"The US, Britain and France have pounded Libya with air strikes and Tomahawk missiles, sparking a furious response from Muammar Gaddafi who said the Mediterranean had now become a 'battlefield.'

"United States and British forces fired at least 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libya's air defence sites, a top US military officer said, two days after a UN Security Council resolution with Arab backing authorised military action.

"Libyan state media said that Western warplanes bombed civilian targets in Tripoli, causing casualties while an army spokesman said strikes also hit fuel tanks feeding the rebel-held city of Misrata, east of Tripoli...."
(The Sydney Morning Herald)

---

"The U.S. military has launched its first missiles in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, a senior Defense Department official said Saturday.

"Earlier, French fighter jets deployed over Libya fired at a military vehicle on Saturday, the country's first strike against Moammar Gadhafi's military forces who earlier attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

"U.S. Tomahawk missiles have landed in the western area around Tripoli and Misrata, the American military official said...."
(CNN)

---

"U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said U.S. forces were poised for action in Libya, but made clear Washington was determined to play a supporting role in military action there.

As French warplanes began operations over Libya to stop Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on rebels, Obama said military forces would act quickly to shield civilians from the fighting.

"The international community demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to all attacks against civilians," Obama said during an appearance in Brasilia with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff...."
(Edition: U.S., Reuters)

---

"...6:59 PM Spectator1: A US-led coalition has launched cruise missile and airstrikes against Gaddafi controlled air defences in what is called Operation 'Odyssey Dawn'.
"6:59 PM Spectator1: The coalition includes forces from the US, UK, France, Canada, Italy, Qatar."
(Scoop News)

Related posts:

• "Ivory Coast, Cote d'Ivoire: Bodies in the Street"
  (March 19, 2011)
• "Libya, an Alleged Cease-Fire, and Diplomacy"
  (March 18, 2011)
• "Bahrain, Foreign Troops, and - Maybe - the Last Stand of Kings"
  (March 18, 2011)
• "Libya: United Nations Resolution; and Unpleasantness Ahead"
  (March 17, 2011)
• "Libya: American President's 'Childish,' But Not 'Unilateral' "
  (March 7, 2011)

News and views:

• "Libyans form human shield at Gaddafi's compound"
  Michael Georgy, Reuters Africa (March 19, 2011)
• "West pounds Libya, Gaddafi vows to fight"
  Imed Lamloum, The Sydney Morning Herald (March 20, 2011) (mem. International Dateline)
• "U.S. launches first missiles against Gadhafi forces"
  CNN (March 19, 2011)
• "Obama, Clinton stress U.S. supporting role in Libya"
  Edition: U.S., Reuters (March 19, 2011)
• "International Coalition Strikes Against Libya Begin"
  Scoop News (scoop.co.nz) (March 18(?), 2011)

President Obama, Hawaii, a Governor, and Getting a Grip

Before getting into the topic of this post, President Obama's birth certificate, I'd better make some declarations:

• This is not a political blog
• I don't think
  • There's some kind of vast conspiracy to besmirch the reputation of President Obama
    • Apart from the usual political stuff
  • The Democrats know that Obama
    • Wasn't born in America
    • Has a criminal record
    • Is really a shape-shifting space-alien lizard man
  • Everybody who disagrees with the President is a
    • Racist
    • Nazi
    • Commie
    • Whatever

I'm not "for" President Obama. I'm not "against" him, either. I didn't vote for Barack Obama in the last presidential election, and I think America would be better off with someone else in the White House: but I have nothing against him as a person. Some of his policies I do not and cannot support. Others are not nearly as bad as I had feared: and he's occasionally made decisions I think were sensible.

The matter of Barack Obama's birth certificate is in the news again. Still.

Birth Certificates, Politics, Reality, and Big Oil

Again, I'm not "for" the current American president. I'm not "against" him either, although I'd rather see someone else as chief executive in this country.

I remember that while the second president Bush was in office, some Americans seemed convinced that he was evil incarnate - or the politically correct version of "evil," at any rate. As I said in response to a comment, back in 2008, "...an otherwise-reasonable adult referred to Bush as 'diabolical.'..." I heard and read quite a bit about "Big Oil" then. Funny, how we don't hear about "big toothpaste" so much. And I'm drifting off-topic.

Between the all-too-human habit of getting a fixed idea, like 'the commies are behind it' or 'it's the fault of the Jews,' and holding on to it regardless of facts; and what happens to our frontal cortex when emotions are in play - I don't expect to change the mind of anyone whose mind is made up about President Obama.

I've discussed this sort of thing before:

• "Emotions, the Frontal Cortex, The War on Terror, Anarchists, and the Illuminati"
  (December 23, 2008)
• " 'Quagmire's' Back: Georgia, Russia, NATO, Bush, and the Blame Game"
  (August 24, 2008)

Politics, Stress, and the Tree of Liberty

The 2008 presidential campaigns were stressful for quite a few folks in America, I think. And, as as often happens: when the tree of liberty gets shaken, loose nuts fall out.

One of the notable anti-Obama signs read "Obama Half-Breed Muslin." The sentiment, distasteful as it is, made a little sense. A very little. Barack Obama doesn't have a 'regular American' name like Smith or Tailor. He doesn't look like a 'regular American:' not the WASP version, anyway.

President Obama's appearance and ancestry is an issue, in my opinion: but not in the 'half-breed muslin' way. He's touted as 'America's first black president,' although I gather he's black about the same way I'm Irish. He's America's first Hawaiian president, too - and I've discussed that before. (January 7, 2010)

I think 'firsts' are important, when they represent changes in a culture. That's one reason that I think the first Irish president was a sort of milestone in America's history - and so is the first black president. But I don't think President Kennedy was a good president because he's Irish - and I don't think Barack Obama's ancestors are relevant to his performance, either.

Paperwork and Bureaucracies

Barack Obama's birth certificate - or some official record of his time and place of birth - may be important. On a technical level, at any rate. America has rules about who can and who can't be president - intended, I gather, to help insure that whoever gets voted into office is primarily focused on the interests of the United States of America.

All public knowledge of Barack Obama indicates - strongly - that he was born about 10 years after I was, in the State of Hawaii. And it turns out that he may not have a "long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate ... within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health."¹

Does this mean he's not 'really' an American? Or that 'the truth is out there,' and some vast conspiracy is keeping 'regular Americans' from knowing it?

At this point, I don't think so. Or, rather, I don't think there's reason to assume that Barack Obama isn't, legally, an American citizen, born in one of the 50 states.

Although just barely. Hawaii became a state in 1959. Oddly, I haven't run into anybody claiming that Hawaii isn't really a state in this country. And that's almost another topic.

I do think that Hawaii, like all states, has a bureaucracy that manages paperwork like birth certificates. I also think that it's no great surprise that, about two years after entering the Union, the Hawaii Department of Health either misfiled a full long-form hospital-generated birth certificate - or that the full-blown document was never made in the first place.

Real People All Have Birth Certificates?

Hawaii's Governor Neil Abercrombie has a few words to say about Barack Obama:

"...'It's a matter of principle with me,' the 72-year-old said. 'I knew his mum and dad. I was here when he was born. Anybody who wants to ask a question honestly could have had their answer already.'

"Birthers insist Obama, born in 1961, is not eligible to be commander in chief. The reasons often vary, and have changed and expanded in the two years since the Internet rumour began...."
(Mail Online)

Well, Governor Neil Abercrombie is a Democrat: and in some circles 'everybody knows' what they're like. He's also a man, and white: and there are biases about those people, too, for some.

Maybe Governor Abercrombie really is involved in some vast conspiracy. Maybe he's lying to protect Obama for his own reasons - or to hurt Obama for his own reasons. For someone trying to maintain a cover story, it seems to me that Abercrombie is doing a lousy job.

I'm inclined, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to think that the state of Hawaii has a bureaucracy that takes care of its paper work. And - no big surprise - that Hawaii's bureaucracy can't find a particular document. And/or won't release it.

I recently signed a form that gave someone who's been speaking with my wife and me - permission to speak to my wife. Then there was the hoop I had to jump through to get a look at my own medical records: and that's yet another topic.

Do I think there's something suspicious about a bureaucracy that has trouble finding - and releasing - a particular bit of paperwork? Frustrating, yes: surprising, no.

About somebody not having a birth certificate: One of my ancestors, not all that far back, didn't have a birth certificate. We knew where she'd been born, and had every reason to believe that she was part of the family. But the part of the world she was born in had issues with the sort of people we were - and that's still another topic.

So, no: I'm not shocked and suspicious when someone who wasn't of the 'right sort' when he was born doesn't have a 'real' birth certificate.

As for the American president's time and place of birth? My guess is that there will be more-or-less imaginative stories about that for years to come. Or maybe we'll discover that he's really a genetically-engineered Chinese agent: although that doesn't seem likely.

Related posts:

• " 'Rush Limbaugh Shot Giffords!?' Opinion Polls, Tuscon, and Loughner's Mind"
  (January 12, 2011)
• "President Obama, an Op-Ed Piece, and a Possible Historical Parallel"
  (June 22, 2010)
• "Wouldn't It be Nice, if Nobody Ever Questioned Election Results?"
  (February 8, 2010)
  • In my opinion
    • No, it wouldn't
• "The Sign Says 'Obama Half-Breed Muslin' - Freedom of Speech, Politics, Spelling, and Race"
  (October 1, 2008)
• "A Presidential Candidate Named Hussein? Get a Grip!"
  (February 28, 2008)

In the news:

• "Hawaii governor claims record of Obama's birth 'exists in archives' but can't produce the vital document"
  Mail Online (UK) (January 20, 2011)

---

¹Excerpt from Mail Online:

"Pressure was mounting on Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie today amid increasing confusion over whether President Obama was born there.

"Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

"He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.

"But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

"And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

"He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii...."
(Mail Online)

Jared Loughner, Sarah Palin, James Eric Fuller, and Getting a Grip

"America: Love it or leave it."

"If you don't like it here, why don't you go back where you came from?"

If you remember when those were familiar parts of American culture, you're about my age or older: or it's being taught in whatever they're calling 'social studies' these days.

I remember the 'good old days' fairly well: and they weren't which is another topic.

As for the 'love it or leave it' thing: I think it's significant that folks are trying to break into America, and that's another topic, too.

Change Hurts, Change Happens

'love it or leave it' and 'back where you came from' reflected, I think, the frustration that some Americans felt when confronted with folks who didn't look like them, or - more to the point of this post - didn't agree with them.

I sympathize, a very little, with the red-white-and-blue-blooded 'real' Americans of my younger days. Their world was changing, fast, and they were rapidly losing the influence and status they'd enjoyed. That sort of thing can be, I think, traumatic.

Politics and Getting a Grip

This isn't, as I've written before, a political blog. Sometimes I discuss politics, since the War on Terror - or whatever the conflict is supposed to be called - is affected by politics.

And although I am generally not on the same page as America's liberals, I'm not, quite, "conservative." But I don't mind when someone identifies me as a conservative.

I think quite a few folks assume that there are only three possible philosophical positions in today's America:

• Liberal
• Moderate
• Conservative

Four, counting apathy. (A Catholic Citizen in America (May 12, 2010) of those three - or four - stances are seen as the only possible options, "conservative" is often the least-unlike my views.¹

Even if I was a conservative, moderate, or liberal in the contemporary American sense of the words, I hope I'd still want to make sure that:

• My assumptions were based on facts
• The facts were accurate
• I distinguished between the two

Shooting Victim Arrested?

When I saw that an Arizona shooting victim was arrested - victim, not perpetrator, I thought I might be looking at a proofing glitch.

Upset? Understandable - Nuts? Maybe

Six people were killed and many more wounded in Tuscon, Arizona, Saturday before last. One of the victims of that shooting is under arrest. And undergoing psychiatric evaluation.

The Tea Party is involved.

If you're among those who assume that the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and other 'traitors' are responsible for Gabrielle Giffords being hospitalized, you probably won't like this post.

Happily, Americans who don't agree with the establishment don't have to chose between staying quiet, exile, prison, or execution. That's one of the things I like about this country. And that's not another topic.

Assumptions, Facts, and Telling the Difference

I make assumptions fairly often. I think most folks do. I assume, for example, that when I go to sleep I'll wake up again: generally in about eight hours. So far, that assumption has been a fairly close match with reality.

I try to be careful about distinguishing assumptions from facts. Partly because of my experiences.

Warning! Old Coot Reminiscing

I remember when the 'love it or leave it' bunch ranted about commie plots, rock music, and those 'hippies-college-students-and-flag-burners.' As I wrote earlier, I think some of that came from feelings of frustration. America was changing. A lot.

Time passed. I'm pretty sure that some folks in America are still quite serious when they identify those they don't like as commies. For the most part, though, I think we've moved on. I see no serious indication that America is likely to get caught up in hysterical anti-communism again. Not any time soon.

'Those crazy college students' moved on, too. Some found careers in the business world, some went into politics, and some never left campus. I'll get back to them in a bit.

Growing up in the '50s and '60s, I developed a preference for thinking with my central nervous system and feeling with my glands, not the other way around. Maybe it was all the crazy slogans I heard.

Definition Time

In the context of this post, "assumption" and "to assume" mean:

• Assumption
  • A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn
  • A hypothesis that is taken for granted
  • The act of assuming or taking for granted
    (Princeton's WordNet)
• Assume
  • Take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof
    (Princeton's WordNet)

Arizona, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Jared Loughner, Facts, and Assumptions

I'm like the fellow who said, 'I only know what's in the papers.' Given what I've read in the news, it seems wildly improbable that Jared Loughner didn't pull the trigger outside that grocery in Arizona. Those dead bodies, and testimony of folks who got the gun away from him, all point to Mr. Loughner being guilty.

That people died after being perforated by bullets is, sadly, a fact. At least, I think it's extremely unlikely that reporters, politicos, and law enforcement officials lied about people being killed.

Until some whacking great piece of evidence - or a plausible alternative explanation for the facts as released - comes along, I'm assuming that Jared Loughner is guilty.

But - and this is important - that is an assumption. I don't know it as a fact.

I've discussed the assumption that conservatives are to blame for the Tucson shootings before.(January 12, 2011)

I've also discussed information gatekeepers; and the degree to which reason is in play when emotions run high:

• "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
  (August 14, 2009)
• "Emotions, the Frontal Cortex, The War on Terror, Anarchists, and the Illuminati"
  (December 23, 2008)

Sarah Palin Said 'Kill Gabrielle Giffords?!'

Pima County's Sheriff Dupnik isn't the only person who assumes that conservatives - the ones who aren't decently silent about their opinions, anyway - are responsible for a half-dozen people being gunned down.

I think I may understand why so many folks assume that Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and others like them, are rabble-rousing traitors and a threat to America. For that matter, I think I may understand why another lot assumed about the same thing about 'commies, pinkos, and fellow-travelers.'

'Understanding' isn't the same as 'agreeing.'

I certainly do not agree, for example, that Sarah Palin "should be incarcerated for treason for advocating assassinating public officials." But I think I can understand what's behind that remark.

Disagreement isn't Treason

It's very easy, I think, to assume that someone who doesn't agree with you does so out of malice. Particularly if you spend most of your time with folks who do agree with you.

Remember those 'hippies-college-students-and-flag-burners' from the '60s? They're roughly my age - and a fair number have been America's information gatekeepers for quite a while now. As I said elsewhere, "boy, has 'the establishment' ever changed." (A Catholic Citizen in America (January 12, 2010))

I'm sure that there are east coast news editors who occasionally visit places in that vast expanse separating Newark and Las Vegas, Washington D.C. and Seattle. Just as I'm pretty sure that a fair number of college professors listen to something besides NPR.

But I'm also pretty sure that it's been fairly easy for someone with solid liberal credentials to stay inside their comfort zone: associating with like-minded individuals; and reading chiefly those publications with the right - or, rather, left - point of view.

No wonder, in my opinion, it's been so easy for folks steeped in America's dominant culture to "accept without verification or proof" the idea that Sarah Palin is to blame for the Tucson shootings.

Back in the '60s, I learned that someone can disagree with me and not be evil incarnate. As I said in the heading: disagreement isn't treason.

Definition Time, Again

• Disagreement
  • A conflict of people's opinions or actions or characters
  • Difference between conflicting facts or claims or opinions
  • the speech act of disagreeing or arguing or disputing
    (Princeton's WordNet)
• Treason
  • A crime that undermines the offender's government
  • Disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
  • An act of deliberate betrayal
    (Princeton's Wordnet)

It's not always called "treason." Back when political correctness was in flower, disagreement was often labeled as "hate speech" or "intolerance."

That was then, this is now.

America is changing. Just like in the '60s. And, just like in the '60s, folks who have gotten used to things the way they've 'always been' don't like it. In my opinion, anyway.

Not All Liberals are Crazy - In My Opinion

Tempting as it is to claim that James Eric Fuller is a 'typical liberal,' I don't think that's true. I hope not, anyway. He was forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation after making some - remarkable - statements:

"Arizona shooting victim James Eric Fuller remains under psychiatric observation following his arrest Saturday for threatening a Tea Party leader at a town hall meeting....

"...Pima County Sheriff spokesman Jason Ogan told FoxNews.com that Fuller -- who was charged with disorderly conduct and making threats -- is still at an undisclosed facility in Tucson, Ariz....

"...Fuller, ... said Palin and other media figures had 'definitely' had an impact on the Tucson shooting. He also said Palin 'should be incarcerated for treason for advocating assassinating public officials.'

"...'If you are going to scream hatred and preach hatred, you're going to sow it after a while if you've got a soap box like they've got. We've got a surplus of demented dingbats, wackos.'...

"...Fuller appeared to become enraged and allegedly started threatening Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries at a town hall meeting being taped for an ABC News special.

"Fuller ... snapped a photo of the Tea Party leader and yelled out, 'You're dead.'..."
(FoxNews.com)²

He also stated that folks at the Tea Party meeting were "whores."

Apparently, at least under current circumstances, law enforcement in Arizona is able to impose a sort of 'time out' for someone who behaves as Mr. Fuller did. Allegedly, as the article put it.

Disagreeing With the President isn't Treason - It's Disagreement

I remember the 'good old days,' when 'regular Americans' often assumed that disagreeing with them was treason to motherhood, flag, and apple pie. A lot has changed since then.

And, in some ways, not much has changed.

"...WALLACE: What do you think of Barack Obama's presidency so far?

"PALIN: He has some misguided decisions that he is making that he is expecting us to just kind of sit down and shut up and accept, and many of us are not going to sit down and shut up. We're going to say no, we do not like this... ..."
(FoxNews.com)²

Not sitting down and shutting like a good little American is not, I think, treason. Even if the person who refuses to be silent doesn't agree with the President of the United States. Or me.

It's disagreement.

And, in my opinion, we're in big trouble when folks who do not agree with the establishment are seen as traitors. I didn't like that attitude in the '60s, and I don't like it now.

Related posts:

• " 'Rush Limbaugh Shot Giffords!?' Opinion Polls, Tuscon, and Loughner's Mind"
  (January 12, 2011)
• "Rebellious Youth, Protests, and The Establishment: in 2010"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (January 26, 2010)
• "Who Needs Facts? Cultural Assumptions and Politics"
  (July 24, 2009)
• "Pentagon Equates (Violent) Protest to Terrorism: Leaves Out Critical Explanation"
  (June 18, 2009)
• "Army Report: Big Mistakes in Iraq!"
  (June 30, 2008)
  • Mistakes happen
    • The trick is to learn from mistakes
    • Not ignore them
      • And hope they'll go away

News and views:

• "Arizona Shooting Victim Remains Under Psychiatric Evaluation Following Arrest at Town Hall Meeting"
  Jana Winter, The Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (January 17, 2011)
• "TRANSCRIPT: Fox News Sunday Interview With Sarah Palin"
  FoxNews.com (January 7, 2011)

---

¹I'm a practicing Catholic, which makes me 'obviously' conservative or liberal, depending on the issue: "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic," A Catholic Citizen in America (November 3, 2008).

² Excerpts from recent news and views:

"Arizona Shooting Victim Remains Under Psychiatric Evaluation Following Arrest at Town Hall Meeting"
Jana Winter, The Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (January 17, 2011)

"Arizona shooting victim James Eric Fuller remains under psychiatric observation following his arrest Saturday for threatening a Tea Party leader at a town hall meeting....

"...Pima County Sheriff spokesman Jason Ogan told FoxNews.com that Fuller -- who was charged with disorderly conduct and making threats -- is still at an undisclosed facility in Tucson, Ariz.

"On Friday, Media Matters touted their interview with Fuller, who said Palin and other media figures had 'definitely' had an impact on the Tucson shooting. He also said Palin 'should be incarcerated for treason for advocating assassinating public officials.'

"In the interview Fuller said: 'If you are going to scream hatred and preach hatred, you're going to sow it after a while if you've got a soap box like they've got. We've got a surplus of demented dingbats, wackos.'

"The news program 'Democracy Now' also featured an interview with Fuller who said that after being hospitalized for his wounds, he stayed up most of the night, writing down the words Declaration of Independence to help him try to calm down. The 63-year-old disabled veteran was shot in the knee and back in the shooting.

"But on Saturday Fuller appeared to become enraged and allegedly started threatening Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries at a town hall meeting being taped for an ABC News special.

"Fuller -- who was sitting in the front row -- allegedly became agitated when Humphries suggested postponing gun control conversations until after all six shooting victims had been buried.

"Ogan said that Fuller snapped a photo of the Tea Party leader and yelled out, 'You're dead.' Fuller also began ranting, and as he was being escorted out, he addressed the audience as 'whores,' according to Ogan...."
(FoxNews.com)

---

"TRANSCRIPT: Fox News Sunday Interview With Sarah Palin"
FoxNews.com (January 7, 2011)

"CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS HOST: Governor Palin, welcome to FOX NEWS SUNDAY.

"SARAH PALIN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you so much.

"WALLACE: How do you see yourself as a member of the Tea Party movement or a member of the Republican Party?

"PALIN: Oh, I think the two are and should be even more so merging because the Tea Party movement is quite reflective of what the GOP, the planks in the platform are supposed to be about. Limited government and more freedom, more respect for equality. That's what the Tea Party movement is about, so I think that the two are much entwined and I'm happy about that.

"...WALLACE: You say you are happy to be or proud to be a part of it. Some people think you want to be the leader of the Tea Party movement.

"PALIN: No, I would hope that the Tea Party-ers don't believe that they need some kind of well-oiled machine, some kind of replicate of the GOP or the Democrat Party and instead they remain a movement of the people uprising and saying, listen to us, we have some common sense solutions that we want our politicians to consider and to implement and this is much bigger than a hockey mom from Wasilla....

"...WALLACE: What do you think of Barack Obama's presidency so far?

PALIN: He has some misguided decisions that he is making that he is expecting us to just kind of sit down and shut up and accept, and many of us are not going to sit down and shut up. We're going to say no, we do not like this...

WALLACE: Wait, wait, where's he saying sit down and shut up?

PALIN: In a general just kind of general persona I think that he has when he's up there at, I'll call it a lectern. When he is up there and he is telling us basically, I know best, my people here in the White House know best, and we are going to tell you that yes, you do want this essentially nationalized health care system and we're saying, no, we don't....

"...WALLACE: Let's talk about national security. During the campaign, you said this about Mr. Obama. 'Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country.' The president has escalated the war in Afghanistan. He has launched more drone attacks in his first year than George W. Bush did in eight years. Given what he's done as president, do you take back palling around with terrorists?

"PALIN: No, I don't, because his associations with Bill Ayers and with others, he never really has, I think, adequately addressed why in the world he would have a relationship with a type of person like that, who had such disdain for America that he would want to bomb, harm, hurt, kill, Americans.

"WALLACE: But has he done a good job in protecting the country?

"PALIN: So the things that he has done right now as president in protecting the country, more power to him. We appreciate that he kind of went there fully with the commanders on the ground asking for more reinforcements in Afghanistan. Couldn't get there all the way with these guys, but kind of went there. Good, more power to you. And I speak as a military mom, too, saying thank you. You're giving me a little bit more of a secure knowledge that you're looking out for our troops and the things that their commanders are asking for. I'm thinking kind of, of my son in this situation. Thank you for doing that. However, there are many things that he is doing today that cause an uneasiness in many, many Americans, I'm one of those.

"Who looks at the way that he is treating the trials of these terrorists and kind of as gosh, they're on a crime spree right now. No, we are in war. These are acts of these war that these terrorists are committing. We need to treat them a little bit differently than an American who is worthy -- an American being worthy of our U.S. constitutional rights. I don't think the terrorists are worthy of our rights that people like my son fight and are willing to die for....

"...WALLACE: Let's turn to Sarah Palin, because there are some questions quite frankly I've wanted to ask you for a while now.

"In your book, 'Going Rogue,' you said that when you first heard that you were pregnant with Baby Trigg, you wrote this: 'I'm out of town.

"No one knows I'm pregnant. No one would ever have to know.'

"You made the choice to have Trigg, and it obviously -- you were showing me earlier pictures of him -- it was the right choice for you. Why not allow all women to make their own choice?

"PALIN: Well I believe that these babies in our womb have the right to life. And that's what I stand on. And I did. I -- I honestly, candidly talked about that in my book when I said, "I can understand the sensitivity of the issue," because I've been there.

"I've -- I've understood why that fleeting thought would enter a woman's mind.

"And then when I found out that after ultra sounds, after tests, that Trigg would be born with Downs Syndrome, of course that thought occurred to me again. Wow, this is why a woman would be fearful of less than ideal circumstances, and maybe think that a quote, unquote, 'problem,' could just be swept away....

"...I want women to know that they are strong enough, and they are smart enough to be able to do many things at once -- including carrying a child. Giving that child life. And then perhaps if they're in less than ideal circumstances or they're carrying a child while they're trying to pursue career, or avocations, or -- or education opportunities -- less than ideal circumstances.

"Giving that child life which it deserves, and then perhaps looking at adoption, or looking at other circumstances after. But not snuffing out the life of a child....

"...WALLACE: ... with 17 months left in your term. You said, 'I wasn't going to run for reelection. So I was going to be a lame duck.' You said that the state was being paralyzed, because all of your opponents were filing these lawsuits." Didn't you let your enemies -- your opponents drive you from office?

"PALIN: Hell, no. Thankfully I didn't. What's -- what we did was we won, because the state today -- it's not spending millions of dollars to -- to fight these frivolous lawsuits, and -- and frivolous ethics charges. Ethics charges like me wearing a jacket with a snow machine logo on it. And getting charged for an unethical act for doing such a thing.

"Little piddly, petty things like that that were costing our state millions of dollars. And costing me and my administration -- my staff members -- about 80 percent of our time fighting those things. 'No,' we said, 'We're not going to play this game.'...

"...PALIN: I don't think that they think I -- look it. I'm sitting here talking to Chris Wallace today. I think some of them are going, 'Dang, we thought she'd sit down and shut up after we tried to do to here what we tried.'...

"...PALIN: I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'F-ing retards.' And we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. That's a big difference there.

"But again, name calling, using language that is insensitive by anyone -- male, female, Republican, Democrat, it's unnecessary, it's inappropriate and let's all just grow up....

"...WALLACE: Handicap the 2012 GOP presidential race for us. Who's the front-runner?

PALIN: No idea. I have no idea....

"...PALIN: As I say, I could name a whole lot of them but we don't have a whole lot of time. But I'm very impressed with many of the characters, the personalities of those with great intelligence in this party and I can't wait to see who rises to the surface, after hopefully some very competitive, contested primaries.

"I'm all about competition. I'm all about, even on our local level and state level, I want to see contested primaries where we are forced via competition to work harder, produce better, be more efficient and that's what these contested primaries that I look forward to will produce.

"WALLACE: You talk about rising to the top. There's a new poll out this week of Republican voters across the country and it shows someone named Sarah Palin leading the 2012 race by five points over Mitt Romney. Aren't you the front-runner for the nomination?

"PALIN: Nope. Don't know who conducted that poll and I know that polls are fickle and heck, after this interview, Chris, we may see a plummeting in the poll numbers. Who knows. These are fickle. I can't comment on what the poll numbers mean today....

"...WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

"PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

"But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

"WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

"PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

"WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --

"PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

WALLACE: Not going to win?

"PALIN: He's not going to win. If he continues on the path that he has American on today -- and here's the deal -- that's what a lot of Americans are telling him today and he's not listening. Instead he's telling everybody else, listen up and I'll tell you the way it is.

"Well, we have a representative form of government in our democracy.

"And we want him and we want Congress to listen to what those things are that we are saying. And that's what the Tea Party movement is about, too. It's not a well-oiled beautiful machine.

"It's the people saying, please hear us. Congress, you have constitutional limits and we want you to adhere to those. We have free market principles that built out country. Mr. President, we want you to remember those. We want you to look back on successes in history, like what Reagan did in times of crisis. And, could you repeat those things because they are proven to succeed.

"WALLACE: Word is that you're getting $100,000 for this speech this weekend. True?

"PALIN: I'm not getting it. They're writing a check -- a $100,000 check. And as I've said from Day One on this, I'm turning right around and being able to contribute it back to the cause. That means to people, to events --

"WALLACE: So you're going to use your PAC and contribute it to candidates?

"PALIN: I don't know if it's going to go to the PAC or if it goes to some non-profit or what.

"Bottom line, I'm not personally benefiting from this. And the funny thing is, as I've had a lot of people, including a couple of talented people and talent at FOX say, funny thing about these type of speeches, Sarah you're an anomaly. Nobody ever has asked, are you getting paid for this? Or, what are you going to do with the money?

"But, this is the new normal I think when it comes to me, is people wanting to have me under a microscope and figure out every little detail of my life, including speaking fees.

"Bottom line, Tea Party movement, I'm giving the money back to the cause.

WALLACE: Finally, regardless of whether you ever run for political office or not. What role do you want to play in the country's future?

PALIN: First and foremost I want to be a good mom. And I want to raise happy, healthy, independent children. And I want them to be good citizens of this great country.

And then I do want to be a voice for some common-sense solutions. I'm never going to pretend like I know more than the next person. I'm not going to pretend to be an elitist. In fact, I'm going to fight the elitist because for too often and for too long now, I think the elitists have tried to make people like me and people in the heartland of America, feel like we just don't get it and big government is just going to have to take care of us.

I want to speak up for the American people and say, no, we really do have some good common-sense solutions. I can be a messenger for that...."

I left out quite a bit of the Wallas/Palin interview: including comments about Regan as a role model for Palin.

I can see how this person - this woman - who won't do the decent thing and keep quiet when her views aren't proper: is so heartily disliked. She simply does not know her place. From the establishment point of view, anyway.

'Rush Limbaugh Shot Giffords!?' Opinion Polls, Tuscon, and Loughner's Mind

'If 300,000,000 people really believe in a stupid idea: It's still a stupid idea.'

I think opinion polls are interesting: and reflect what the folks who were polled feel.

I also think opinion polls are important for marketing professionals, politicians, and network programmers: whose jobs involve dealing with the opinions of some segment of the population.

As a reflection of reality, though: I don't think opinion polls are all that accurate.

Even when they seem to support something I think is true, like "flossing between meals is good for your teeth." In that example, I'd be much more interested in what dentists and medical researchers had learned: and could prove.

Blame Game and Assumptions

It's very easy, I think, to assume that folks who don't share one's views are evil. I've run into assertions that Jared Lee Loughner has a Satanic temple of sorts in his home - and, of course, that Sarah Palin is to blame for Mr. Loughner's killing a half-dozen people.

It wasn't the same person making those assertions, and I don't take either all that seriously.

Or, rather, I don't take the 'Satanic temple' claim all that seriously. Given the assumptions of America's dominant culture, and the common sense of the rest of us, my opinion is that we're not likely to see a pogrom started based on the assumption that demon-worshipers are threatening national security.

Action against Ron Paul supporters, maybe: and that's another topic. (March 23, 2009) Almost.

I've discussed emotions and reason before:

• "Emotions, the Frontal Cortex, The War on Terror, Anarchists, and the Illuminati"
  (December 23, 2008)

Bottom line: in my considered opinion when emotions are high, logic is not a big factor in how folks respond.

'The Other Guy's' Opinions are Hate Speech?

As I said, it's easy to assume that folks who hold views that contradict one's own are to blame when something goes wrong. I think that's part of the reason why we got 'hate speech' legislation in this country - and that's almost another topic.

I don't think it's any surprise that some of America's old-school information gatekeepers, like the folks who control media like television news, decided quite quickly that conservatives were to blame for killing that 9-year-old girl and wounding Giffords. 'Obviously,' saying things like 'we'll fight for our right to express our opinion' is an open invitation to kill pre-teens, and a threat to national security. When the 'wrong sort' say it, anyway.

Just like, back in my 'good old days,' it was 'obvious' to quite a few folks that the commies were to blame for everything they didn't like. I don't think we'll see McCarthyism again: This isn't post-WWII America, and 'the establishment' doesn't include the same lot who decided it would be a good idea to hunt commies.

Human nature hasn't changed, though: not as far as I can tell anyway. It's still easy to assume that 'the other guy' should keep those dangerous views to him- or herself.

"Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik got plenty of attention when he quickly pinned the blame for the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., on conservatives, Rush Limbaugh and even Republican opposition to the 'progress' being sought by his fellow Democrats.

"But it has now been revealed that Dupnik's department had prior interaction with suspect Jared Loughner. The department is still holding back details of the calls, but has now confirmed that deputies made multiple visits to the Lougner home in recent years...."
(FoxNews.com)

The news source I used for that excerpt isn't part of the old-school media establishment: which, in my opinion, is part of why the article didn't put the 'right' spin on Sheriff Dupnik's remarks.

What's a bit surprising, to me, is what's showing up in the more familiar new outlets:

"A majority of Americans reject the view that heated political rhetoric was a factor in the weekend shootings in Arizona which killed six and critically wounded a congresswoman, a CBS News poll said on Tuesday.

"Since the Saturday incident in which Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot at point-blank range, various politicians and commentators have said a climate in which strong language and ideological polarization is common may have contributed to the attack.

"Some of the analysts cited anti-government statements from the man arrested in the shooting, Jared Lee Loughner, as support for that view.

"But CBS said its nationwide telephone poll found that, '57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did.'..."
(Reuters)

I'm a tad leery of secondhand reports, like "CBS said." I'd rather read what a resource actually wrote - not what someone else says was written. So, from CBS News:

"Forty-five percent of Americans believe that Jared Loughner's political views were "probably" a factor in the shootings in Tucson Saturday, a new CBS News poll shows. One in three say they probably were not a factor, while 22 percent say they do not know.

"Loughner has not cooperated with investigators in the wake of the shooting, and evidence suggests he held muddled political views far outside the mainstream. Many partisans have nonetheless tried to link the alleged shooter to the right or left.

"The poll also shows that while three in four Americans say violence against the government is never justified, 16 percent say it can be justified -- the same percentage that said as much in April. Twenty-eight percent of Republicans said such violence can be justified, compared with 11 percent of Democrats and independents. ..."
(CBS News)

That's interesting. Quite interesting. Not because I think the poll results have much to do with Loughner's motives, but for what they show about the attitude of whoever CBS News decided to ask.

Which gets into statistics, sampling error, propaganda - and those are other topics.

'He's Crazy - Lock Him Up?'

I don't think it's any surprise to learn that Mr. Loughner isn't your average young man from Arizona. Most folks, from any state, aren't all that likely to open fire on a crowd of people near a grocery. If that were the case, the carnage in Tuscon wouldn't have been particularly newsworthy, outside Arizona. Just as we generally don't hear about traffic accidents in Flagstaff. In my opinion.

Oddly enough, Mr. Loughner doesn't seem to be particularly political: in any direction.

"Arizona massacre gunman Jared Loughner's downward spiral may have been touched off by a broken high school romance and fueled by drug use -- but it was not politically motivated, according to his best friend in high school.

"Zach Osler, in an interview Wednesday with ABC's 'Good Morning America,' said: 'He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right.'

"Media speculation swirled after Loughner allegedly opened fire at a Tucson rally last Saturday, critically wounding Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 13 others and killing six. Immediately, the Tucson sheriff and liberal pundits and lawmakers chimed in that the shooting somehow was politically motivated and a result of the extreme rhetoric being used by conservatives such as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

"But Osler said Loughner wasn't shooting at people, 'he was shooting at the world.'..."

"Osler's admission comes as blame for the national tragedy continues to be cast everything from Arizona's immigration law, to Sarah Palin, to charged rhetoric in the political arena rather than apparent mental illness.

"In an e-mail to students and staff at University of California-Berkeley on Monday, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau blamed the shooting that killed six and wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- and 13 others -- squarely on the state's controversial immigration law S.B. 1070 while acknowledging Jared Lee Loughner was 'profoundly disturbed.'

" 'A climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated can lead to such a tragedy,' the e-mail read. 'I believe it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons.' "
FoxNews.com

That's familiar enough to me: 'those people over there' practice "demonization of others," while epithets like "male chauvinist pig" are hailed as part of the liberation of women from legalized rape.¹

With 20-20 hindsight, it's easy to see that someone might have prevented Mr. Loughner from killing those folks in Tuscon.

I'm also rather glad that a sheriff, high school buddy, or 'concerned citizen' can't call 'Mental Sanitation Department,' or whatever the bureau would be called - and have Jared Loughner shipped off to some asylum where he'd never be seen again.

And that's another topic.

Related posts:

• "Rambling About Tucson, Sudan, and Prudence"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (January 9, 2011)
• "Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords Shot: Utterly Unacceptable"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 8, 2011)
• "Actions have Consequences: Burning the Quran"
  (September 7, 2010)
• "Police Abuse: America isn't Russia"
  (February 19, 2010)

In the news:

• "Report: Arizona Gunman Was Not Motivated By Politics"
  FoxNews.com (January 12, 2011)
• "Dupnik’s Department Knew Loughners; Obama Will Skip Politics; Gun Control Fight Brewing"
  FoxNews.com (January 12, 2011
• "Majority doesn't blame rhetoric for Giffords shooting"
  Reuters (January 11, 2011)
• "Poll: 45% Say Politics Motivated Jared Loughner"
  CBS News (January 11, 2011)

---

¹ Crazy feminism seems to be on the way out: but we're still cleaning up the fallout, in my opinion. More about that in another blog:

• "Legalized Rape, Brightly Burning Bras, and Fitting In"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (May 8, 2010)

Transparency: For the Right People, Apparently

This blog isn't political. Not in the sense that I consistently write that a Ms. Smith is the most intelligent woman in the universe, who by rights should have won every election she ran in - or that a Mr. Jones is a doo-doo-head who is unfit to serve as a human being. (more at June 21, 2009, and elsewhere)

This blog is concerned with the war on terror - whether that term is supposed to exist or not. (March 30, 2010) What America's government decides to do - or not do - about the real threat of people who want to kill us is determined, for the time being, by politicians.

As a result, I have to look at political matters from time to time.

Like this:

"Contrary to the Obama administration's promised commitment to open government, the Department of Homeland Security, in a highly irregular move, filtered hundreds of public records requests through political appointees, allowing them to examine what was being requested and delay releasing sensitive material, according to internal e-mails obtained by the Associated Press.

"The political appointees were allowed to vet records requests that were deemed politically sensitive and require career employees to provide them with information about who requested records — for example, where the requester lived and worked, whether the requester was a private citizen or journalist and, in the case of congressional representatives, whether they were Republican or Democrat.

"The DHS issued a directive to employees in July 2009 requiring a wide range of public records requests to pass through political appointees for vetting. These included any requests dealing with a 'controversial or sensitive subject' or pertaining to meetings involving prominent business leaders and elected officials. Requests from lawmakers, journalists, and activist and watchdog groups were also placed under this scrutiny.

"The reviewers included Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano's top staff members, including her deputy chief of staff, senior department lawyer and deputy director of scheduling...."
(Threat Level, Wired)

I think it's a good idea to be careful about what information is released to which people. The old adage, 'loose lips sink ships,' may sound corny - but there's good sense in it. (May 11, 2010)

However, I think that deciding what information is "sensitive" should be in the hands of someone whose job security isn't dependent on keeping a politico happy.

I was impressed, positively, when candidate Barack Obama said that he would promote 'transparency' in government. It's a fundamentally sound idea.

The problem is, it has to be turned from a sound idea into an established practice.

From the Office of Deniability: No Information Was Withheld

Like that one-time favorite of Hollywood, the letter of pardon from the Governor, some information becomes less and less useful, the longer it's withheld.

"...Although the vetting did not prevent information that should have been released from getting released, the AP noted, it did cause numerous delays - sometimes lasting weeks - in releasing records to Congress, watchdog groups and reporters. The delays led some department officials to worry about potential lawsuits, according to one internal e-mail the AP obtained.

" 'All this article points out is that senior leadership had visibility into FOIA releases to enable the department to be as responsive as possible to requests from the press and other stakeholders, especially as it pertained to documents generated during the previous administration, DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa told Threat Level in an e-mail statement. She noted that the department, under the Obama administration, had reduced a FOIA backlog inherited from the Bush administration from 74,879 requests at the end of fiscal year 2008 to just 12,406 requests as of this January and had also reduced the typical processing time for requests.

"The e-mails obtained by the AP, however, reveal that political appointees were less interested in vetting record requests for these reasons than for determining — based on the kinds of requests coming in - what areas of the government might be under scrutiny. Knowing what records journalists were requesting might help the administration prepare a response in anticipation of a news story. For example, the e-mails show concern about making sure the department didn't release information about Obama's father without first coordinating with the White House...."
(Threat Level, Wired)

I was impressed that the DHS spokesperson mentioned the size of the backlog at one point during the previous administration, compared to the size under Obama's enlightened oversight - without saying how the size of the backlog compared to the number of requests. I've talked about using, and misusing, facts before.

Can't We Just Trust the Government?

There are systems of government in which 'the masses' don't have to know what's going on. Instructions come from the Emperor, or whatever the top level is called: and responsibility for folks at my level ends when we receive our instructions, and obey.

A system like that can work, but it's not the way America gets things done.

Our system requires an informed electorate. That's informed, not fed whatever our betters think we should know.

As the upcoming midterm elections will probably demonstrate once again, it's messy: but the system works.

And I rather like it.

Related posts:

• "President Obama, an Op-Ed Piece, and a Possible Historical Parallel"
  (June 22, 2010)
• "Yes, it Could be Worse: Venezuela, Interpol, and TV Station Owner"
  (June 18, 2010)
• " 'Loose Lips Sink Ships,' Times Square Bomber, and News Leaks"
  (May 11, 2010)
• "Obama Limits Nuclear Weapons: That's Nice"
  (April 6, 2010)
• "If We Don't Discuss It, It Doesn't Exist?"
  (January 5, 2010)
• "White House Reporting, John Ensign, Freedom and a Reality Check"
  (October 19, 2009)

In the news:

• "Political Appointees Vetted DHS Public Records Requests: Report"
  Threat Level, Wired (July 22, 2010)

If We Don't Discuss It, It Doesn't Exist?

There was a time when you'd find people - good, upstanding pillars of the community, members of the country club who went to the right church and everything - acted as though problems could be ignored into oblivion.

If you remember the fifties and sixties, you know about this sort of thing: the prominent businessman whose secretary had to take a long vacation; the society matron whose doctor prescribed extra-strength happy pills; and so on, all the way to that famous meeting of the Harper Valley PTA.

And, of course, there were the hidebound conservatives who really believed that any criticism of "the government" was tantamount to treason.

That was then, this is now. "The establishment" has a different preferred reality, apparently - and I find that I'm still at odds with it.

"Wouldn't it be Loverly?"

I've made the point before, that I don't think war is nice. I also think that it would be nice if everybody would just get along.

Somehow, though, I doubt that people like Osama bin Ladin are likely to decide that they'd feel a whole lot better if they stopped hating the west and killing Muslims who didn't live up - or down - to their standards.

It would be nice, if you could take a dedicated terrorist, be nice to him, show him how to draw nice pictures, and wind up with a nice person who's ready to embrace the whole wide world in one big fuzzy hug. As Eliza Doolittle sang, Wouldn't it be Loverly?"

Or, as the Beach Boys put it: "Wouldn't it be Nice?"

Not, however, very likely. In my opinion.

Art Lessons for Terrorists: You Can't Make This Sort of Thing Up

I've seen enough applied psychology work, over the decades, to be cautious about dismissing most ideas. "Art therapy rehabilitation," though, is quite close to the edge of the envelope when it comes my willingness to be open-minded.

"...Mohammed Atiq al-Harbi, also known as Mohammed al-Awfi, and Said Ali al-Shihri were sent home to Saudi Arabia, where they were admitted to an 'art therapy rehabilitation programme' and later set free, US and Saudi officials said...."
(BBC)

Those art lessons didn't go entirely to waste. A deputy leader (Said Ali al-Shihri) and a field commander (Mohammed al-Awfi) for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, now should be able to draw nice pictures - if called upon to do so. (France24)

Terrorists Don't Believe They're Terrorists

I'm going out on a limb here, but it seems that terrorists - the Islamic-crazy sort, at any rate - believe that what they're doing is right.

Just as Joseph Burges apparently thought that God wanted him to kill people who did naughty things. (A Catholic Citizen in America (July 24, 2009))

Except Al Qaeda and the Taliban have a whole lot of people like Joseph Burges - and they're organized.

I think it's the height of folly to act as if Osama bin Laden, Mohammed Atiq al-Harbi, Said Ali al-Shihri, and others like them, are like misunderstood street kids who just need a break to go straight.

War isn't Nice, But This is War

The War on Terror may no longer exist - officially (March 30, 2009) - but there's a (loosely) organized set of organizations who earnestly, sincerely, passionately believe that God is telling them to kill people.

The people they want to kill don't, quite often, want be killed. What we have, therefore, is a conflict.

The War on Terror isn't a nice, old-fashioned, gentlemanly war where a formal declaration of war is sent - and a battle arranged after tea on some mutually-acceptable afternoon. I rather doubt that wars were ever quite like that - and the War on Terror certainly isn't of that sort.

But it is a war. Over 3,000 people abruptly stopped breathing on September 11, 2001.

Some died when an exploding airliner sprayed bits and pieces of their bodies over New York City. Some didn't get out of New York City's World Trade Center in time. Some, the ones caught on floors above the impact points, couldn't.

Others were crushed, burned, or asphyxiated when an airliner crashed into the Pentagon.

Still others were retaking their airliner when it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

I won't 'Get Over It'

It might sound grand to say something like 'put the past behind me' or 'let bygones be bygones' or 'live and let live.' The problem is, the people who keep Al Qaeda and the Taliban going - as well as the other Islamic terrorists - (not all Muslims) aren't willing to 'live and let live.'

And, nice as it sounds, it doesn't take two to make trouble. Not when one of them is intent on killing the other.

This is One Problem That Won't Just Go Away

Back to the 'Harper Valley PTA' strategy, of ignoring a problem - unless it involves someone else.

Pretending that the War on Terror doesn't exist makes about as much sense, I think, a giving terrorists art lessons and feeling that they'll be nice people as a result.

The people running Al Qaeda and like-minded outfits are, quite simply, not nice. Wanting them to be nice, hoping that they'll be nice, treating them nicely, and pretending that everything's nice: isn't nice. It's stupid. And, potentially, lethal.

There's More - There's Always More

If you haven't gotten enough of this post: There's more. I put excerpts from the news and op-ed pieces that got me started, as well as some of my running commentary, after the links in this post.¹

Related posts:

• "News Stories You're Not Supposed to Know About"
  (December 31, 2009)
• " 'The System Worked' - Napolitano and an Unscripted Interview"
  (December 28, 2009)
• "Northwest Flight 253: Near Miss on Christmas Weekend"
  (December 27, 2009)
• "Harper Valley PTA - Yeah, There Are People Like That"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (December 8, 2009)
• "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
  (August 14, 2009)
• "North Korea and the Kim Jong Dynasty: Not All Countries are the Same"
  (June 9, 2009)
• "Canadian Mosque's "Specialized De-Radicalization Intervention Program" - Sounds Good"
  (February 26, 2009)
• "Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri: No Cole Charges - Dandy"
  (February 5, 2009)
• "Gitmo Prisoner Released to Saudi Arabia, Graduated from Jihad Rehab, Rejoined Al Qaeda: Success Story?"
  (January 23, 2009)
• "USS Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and The War on Terror"
  (January 13, 2009)
• "Saudi Arabia's National Day, Islam, and Tribalism: This is Big"
  (September 27, 2008)
• "Beach Killer Joseph Burges: A Case of Horribly Warped Christianity"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (July 24, 2009)
• "Leaky Prisons, Air-Tight Internet: Yemen, Turkey, and the Islamic Way?"
  (May 5, 2008)
• "Indonesian Deradicalization Program Working: In Indonesia, at Least"
  (January 15, 2008)
• "Saudi Breakthrough! Jihadists Reformed!! Al Qaeda Members Promise No More Jihad*!!!"
  (November 27, 2007)
  • *on the Arabian Peninsula, that is.
• "USS Cole Mastermind Back in Prison; Or Never Was Released; Or Something Like That"
  (October 28, 2007)
• "Jamal Badawi Blew Up USS Cole, Yemen Released Him"
  (October 26, 2007)
• "Jihad Rehab"
  (August 22, 2007)
• "Congress Must Decide Who to Protect Americans From"
  (August 5, 2007)

News and views:

• "U.S. suspends Guantanamo prisoner transfer to Yemen"
  Reuters (January 5, 2010)
• "Prisoners released from Guantanamo return to fight for al Qaeda"
  Beaufort Observer (January 5, 2010)
• "US suspends Guantanamo to Yemen transfers"
  BBC (January 5, 2010)
• " 'Bad guys' make it difficult to close Guantánamo"
  Times Online (UK) (January 5, 2010)

---

¹Excerpts from today's news and views:

Prisoners released from Guantanamo return to fight for al Qaeda

"You won't see this story in many of the U. S. Elite Media...in fact we could not find a mention of it in any of the major papers or broadcast networks. While it is true they all reported several different articles on President Obama's announcement that he was closing Guantanamo they somehow have missed the story. You have to look in the British press to find it.

"The story is that many of the Guantanamo prisoners that are being moved out of the Cuban prison have ended up back on the battlefield fighting with al Qaeda. In fact, 74, at least, have returned to the battlefield. Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month.

"Meanwhile, there are also reports that a significant number of al Qaeda fighters have moved from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen...."
(News and Commentary, Beaufort Observer)

Lots of assertions, not many specific facts. This is what I started with, this afternoon. I thought that the claims made were quite likely true: but I've learned to research, rather than assume.

So, I started digging: starting with "look in the British press to find it." There's quite a bit of "the British press," but at that clue narrowed the search a trifle.

U.S. suspends Guantanamo prisoner transfer to Yemen

"The Obama administration on Tuesday suspended the transfer of detainees from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay to Yemen as a result of the deteriorating security situation there.

"President Barack Obama bowed to political pressure from Democratic and Republican lawmakers not to send any more prisoners to Yemen as a result of revelations that a would-be bomber on a Detroit-bound plane had received al Qaeda training in Yemen.

"Several of the roughly 91 Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay had been cleared to be sent home, as the Obama administration struggles to close the prison.

"White House officials made clear that the suspension was considered a temporary one.

" 'While we remain committed to closing the (Guantanamo) facility, a determination has been made, right now any additional transfers to Yemen is not a good idea,' said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs...."
(Reuters)

Well, that's interesting. I'm not sure quite what to make of Reuter's turn of phrase - "...President Barack Obama bowed to political pressure...." - but let it pass. Besides, I doubt that someone with the Beaufort Observer would think Reuters was "the British press."

US suspends Guantanamo to Yemen transfers

"The US has said it is temporarily suspending the transfer of prisoners to Yemen from the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba.

"The move comes after it emerged the Nigerian man accused of trying to bomb a US plane on 25 December was allegedly trained by al-Qaeda in Yemen.

"More than 80 Yemeni men were due to be moved from Guantanamo Bay, as the US tries to shut down the camp.

"Officials fear many could re-join militant groups if sent back to Yemen.

"While we remain committed to closing the facility, the determination has been made that right now, any additional transfers to Yemen are not a good idea," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

"US President Barack Obama has come under pressure to halt Guantanamo transfers to Yemen since investigators said 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had been trained in that country to blow up a transatlantic flight to Detroit on Christmas Day.

"It was alleged last week that the bomb plot was planned by two men who were released by the US from Guantanamo Bay in November 2007.

"Mohammed Atiq al-Harbi, also known as Mohammed al-Awfi, and Said Ali al-Shihri were sent home to Saudi Arabia, where they were admitted to an 'art therapy rehabilitation programme' and later set free, US and Saudi officials said...."
(BBC)

Do I really need to say it? BBC - the British Broadcasting Corporation - is, well, British. This could be the source alluded to by the B.O.

Said Ali al-Shihri isn't exactly a household name here in America, but it looks like he's a very important person in Al Qaeda. Specifically, there's good reason to believe that he's the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. Mohammed Atiq al-Harbi? He's only an Al Qaeda field commander. ("Key figures in al Qaeda's Yemeni branch," France24 (January 5, 2010))

Well, at least both of them should be able to draw nice pictures now.

'Bad guys' make it difficult to close Guantánamo

"The Christmas Day airline bomb plot, with its direct links to al-Qaeda in Yemen, is causing a big headache at home for President Obama and, in particular, for his already deeply troubled effort to close Guantánamo Bay.

"Of the 198 detainees still in the prison, nearly half — 91 — are from Yemen.

"In the past 24 hours there have been calls from Republicans and Democrats for the White House to freeze plans to repatriate many of them to Yemen...."

"...There is little confidence in Washington over Yemen's ability to secure its prisoners, or keep tabs on those that have been released. Memories are still fresh of a 2006 jailbreak by 23 top al-Qaeda members. 'All transfers of Yemeni detainees should stop,' Senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent, insisted.

"Two of the four top leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — Saudis called Said al-Shiri and Muhammad al-Awfi — are former Guantánamo detainees who crossed into Yemen after being sent back to Saudi Arabia. Of the more than 800 who have passed through the site in Cuba since it opened in January 2002, 108 have been Yemenis — and only 18 have been repatriated.' 'Yemen has produced an unusually high percentage of seriously bad guys,' said Benjamin Wittes, a Guantánamo expert at the Washington-based Brookings Institution. 'Given Yemen is likelier than the average country to be really scary, and the Government less likely than about all others to keep an eye on them and manage the risk, you end up with a very difficult combination of circumstances.' "
(Times Online (UK))

Or maybe this is "the British press" resource that the Beaufort Observer's writer used. Or, maybe not.

That failed Christmas weekend attempt to bring down Northwest Flight 253
(December 27, 2009) has been quite an embarrassment to the American president. From the looks of it, though, traditional American news media has recovered from the surprise - and administration officials are being quite a bit more prudent about off-the-cuff remarks. (December 28, 2009)

The Yemen connection? Not so obvious in American news coverage. My opinion.

Key figures in al Qaeda's Yemeni branch

"Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has claimed a botched Christmas Day attack on a US-bound flight in a statement released on the Internet. FRANCE 24 takes a look at some of the group's top leaders.

"Days after the failed attack on Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the international spotlight has focused on Islamist networks in Yemen, where 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was reportedly trained by an al Qaeda bomb-maker. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the situation in Yemen 'a threat to global and regional security'.

"But the threat from Yemen – especially from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the group that has claimed the Christmas Day plot – is not a new phenomenon.

"US and Yemeni authorities have been familiar with some of the key figures in Yemeni jihadist circles for the past few years. An alarming number of top AQAP leaders have passed through US and Yemeni detention centres and they are well-known to authorities in both countries.

"The 'emir': Nasir al-Wuhayshi

"A Yemeni former aide to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, al-Wuhayshi, was in Tora Bora, near the Pakistani border, during the US-led offensive after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He escaped via Iran and was arrested by Iranian authorities who then extradited him to Yemen in 2003...."
(France24 (January 5, 2009))

This is a pretty good background resource: I hope France24 keeps the page online.