Rep. Ed Perlmutter in the AM760 Progressive Dojo

If it turns out..

That the huge multitude of signs that Hasan's murders were influenced by radical Islamic beliefs and ideology, are you going to apologize to everyone you called racists?

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 19:32:12 PM CST

My take is

Of course he was influenced by radical Islamic beliefs among other things like being generally extremely twisted in ways that should have been obvious to his colleagues in the military for years, and of course the people who are calling for things like the deportation of Muslims because of this or barring Muslims from the military are racists.  

We've had plenty of mass murders committed by white guys from Christian backgrounds but I never heard anyone calling for their deportation after such incidents. The fact that Sirota is kind of a self righteous ass doesn't make racists any less racist.  

---

by: BlueCat @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 00:41:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Even if he was influenced

by radical islamic ideology, that does not justify discrimination against people of Islamic heritage or faith. When a christian fundamentalist murders an abortion doctor, that does not justify discrimination against christians. When an American civilian not acting as an agent of our government commits a crime overseas, that does not justify holding all Americans responsible. And when a Mexican resident of the United States, documented or undocumented, commits a crime, that does not justify holding all Mexicans responsible.

When anyone, for any reason, commits a crime against others, it is absurd to then hold all people who belong to their ethnic, religious, or national groups simultaneously responsible for their individual acts.

Certainly, hold those members of such groups who advocate or foment violence responsible for the violence that ensues. But do not hold those responsible who are not responsible, just because they share a religion, or nationality, or ethnicity, with those who are.

Otherwise, pretexts for hatred will be ever at hand. That's kind of how racism works.

A good recipe for increasing violence is to increase the degree to which we hold people responsible categorically rather than individually: Purge the military of muslims, and you succeed mostly in breeding resentment among muslims who wished to be patriotic Americans. Few tragedies will be prevented, but many will be germinated. Our military leaders seem to understand this, to their great credit.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:31:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

WHo's discriminating against him?

I didn't say to purge the military of Muslims.  I didn't say round anyone up.  I just said it sure looks like this guy was driven to commit mass murder due in no small part to the influence of radical Islam = terrorism.

But Sirota can kiss my squirrel when he says that anyone who calls this terrorism is a racist.  

He made a giant(er) ass out of himself this week with this garbage.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 19:51:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It is what it is.

Personally, I'm not inclined to argue either that it is, or that it isn't, terrorism, because definitions are conventions rather than truths. But, they are conventions that have a political impact, and often have legal implications, and so are not trivial (such as in the argument over what is, and is not, torture, which you felt strongly about as well).

If you define this act one way or the other, then you have to explain why. You say it's indisputably terrorism because it's motivated in some significant measure by radical Islam. Defining it by reference to  motive makes sense: Terrorism is a tactic for inciting terror to a political end. So, arguably, anyone who starts shooting at people in their vicinity in order to incite terror in service to a political end is a "terrorist," while anyone else who shoots at people in their vicinity is just a violent nut-job.

But what, exactly, was this guy's political purpose? What organization did he belong to (not a requisite, but a factor to be considered in determining if he fits into the category)? What plan was being executed?

If the fact that he was an Islamic fundamentalist who sympathized with the ends of organized terrorists were sufficient to make his act an act of terrorism, then that creates definitional problems of its own. If, for instance, he had been born to and raised in a suburban judeo-christian household and suffered some delusion that he was an islamic fundamentalist, and committed such acts while under that delusion, then he would be, by this definition, a terrorist, fundamentally distinguished from other delusional violent offenders only by the details of his delusion. That's not a very satisfying basis for distinction.

Nor would it be completely satisfying if we conflated terrorism with hate crimes in general. Terrorism is the planned and targeted use of violence as a political tool, like any other act of war except that it specifically targets civilian populations, not the random use of violence due to a generalized hatred of some perceived enemy (the fact that this wasn't, exactly, a civilian population that was targeted is, I think, not terribly relevant in this case).

We certainly don't know if his purpose was to demoralize the enemy in service to radical Islam. Maybe he was just plain nuts (as seems more likely). The line between the two is at least fuzzy: Again, what if a delusional psycotic starts shooting people because he believes they are extraterrestrials trying to conquer Earth, and wants to demoralize their comrades scattered across the globe in order to prevent the invasion? Is that terrorism? (It is, after all, the use of violence to intimidate a population for a political end). Defining terrorism strictly on the basis of what's going on in someone's head is bound to lead to such difficulties.

It looks to me, if you analyze the incident and compare it to some meaningful definition of "terrorism," there are at least good arguments against including this act within that definition.

Having said that, I don't think it's completely indefensible or out in left field to call him a terrorist (though I think it requires some guess work, and probably a bit of emotional predisposition on the part of the person choosing to). It's clearly reasonable not to call him a terrorist, but, again, it's not an argument I am invested in.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 21:58:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But the consequences

of calling it terrorism are another issue. Given that this incident doesn't fit very well under the umbrella of that word, the quesiton is, what is lost and what is gained by placing it there? What is gained is...nothing. What is lost is moving one step closer to calling anyone of middle eastern descent who commits an act of violence a "terrorist," and thus inflaming a discriminatory lens through which we see the actions of people of suspect races.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:10:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yo, Steverino

I visited your website, love the pic.  But...um..you say the district you wish to represent encompasses "unincorporated Littleton, South Jeffco."  How can an area be both a part of Littleton (an incorporated city) and "uncorporated"?  That is, how can there be such a place as unincorporated Littleton?  Don't you mean uncorporated South Jeffco and Littleton?  Or simply one or the other?

---

by: Jambalaya @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:28:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Easy, Jamba.

The name "Littleton" extends into unincorporated South Jeffco (we have a Littleton address), but the incorporated town (in Arapahoe County) by the same name does not. So, people in South Jeffco are in Littleton, but not the incorporated town of Littleton, just the postal and geographic designation "Littleton."

In a sense, there are two Littletons: incorporated Littleton in Arapahoe County, and unincorporated Littleton in Jefferson County. That, along with the street names that extend across the metropolitan area in broken lines and multitudes of "ways," "places," "courts," and "drives," are just some of the little quirks of our local geography that make life interesting here!

(Yeah, I like the pic too. My daughter rocks!)

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:45:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm always easy

...But I think you may be wrong.  Just because you have a Littleton mailing address doesn't necessarily mean your home is in Littleton.  It may simply mean that your nearest post office is in Littleton.  (Many places have a Denver mailing address but are actually not in the city/county limits of Denver.)  I think there is only one Littleton, and that is the city of Littleton.  It sounds like you live near Littleton, but actually in unincorporated JeffCo.  But, of course, I could be the one who's wrong (it's actually happened before).

---

by: Jambalaya @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 23:03:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, Jamba, it's not that you're wrong, just

that you're not quite right. (How's that for diplomacy?)

Our post offices are in South Jeffco, and, at least according to well-established convention, we live both "in Littleton" (though not the incorporated town of Littleton), and in unincorporated South Jeffco. It's a substantial region with an independent identity, as large or larger than the incorporated town of Littleton.

In formal contexts, unincorporated South Jeffco is usually referred to as "unincorporated Jefferson County," but in common parlance (and in local and national news stories), places in unincorporated South Jeffco with a Littleton address are referred to (at least as often, if not more so) as being "in Littleton." Since the main point of the geographic designation on the website is to help people in my district recognize that they are in my district, referring to it in the various ways the residents themselves commonly refer to it was definitely the way to go. Thus, "unicorporated Littleton, South Jeffco." It does the job about as well as the job can be done.

(and I meant that the answer to your question was easy, though I recognized the ambiguity).

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 23:38:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

By the way,

probably at least half the time that you hear about some place in Littleton, it's actually in unincorporated Jefferson County. I think the sense you have that there is only one Littleton, and it is the incorporated town, comes from the fact that when you hear the name, you think of the incorporated town, even when it is actually referring to unincorporated South Jeffco.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 23:52:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok, thanks.

If that's the local convention, then that's what it is.  The convention probably arose out of convenience, I suppose.  The nearest city is Littleton, so people called their area Littleton, even though they are plainly not in Littleton.  I think it's a bit silly (calling an uncorporated area by the name of an incorporated city), but people are often silly.  As you said, your reference does the intended job...when in suburbia, speak suburban!

---

by: Jambalaya @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 09:24:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're probably right.

Postal delivery was probably originally served by the Littleton post office, and so unincorporated South Jeffco acquired a Littleton postal address. But now we have our own post offices, with our own zip codes (one less than a mile to my northeast, and another about a mile to my southwest), both in our immediate vicinity in unincorporated Jeffco, but both carrying "Littleton" addresses, and both being five miles or more from the actual town.

I'm an epistemological and ontological agnostic: If people all accept something to be true, and its truth is dependent only what people believe to be true, then it is, essentially, true. Stranger things have happened.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:28:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

For the record

For the record, despite the right-wing propaganda from this person called Laughing Boy, what I said was that those who cite Hasan's religion/ethnicity as reason to demand punitive measures against the entire Muslim community in the United States are bigots.

I've said all along that evidence may come out that prove Hasan was acting out of some deranged and extremist interpretation of Islam - just like the killers of abortion doctors act out of their own deranged and extremist interpretation of Christian teachings. But whereas nobody calls for a pogrom against the entire Christian community when those abortion killings have happened, some have called for a pogrom against the entire Muslim community in the aftermath of the Ft. Hood shootings:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi...

The latter represents bigotry - and if you can't see that - if you can't see how using this awful situation at Ft. Hood as an excuse to persecute innocent Muslims with racial profiling, for instance - then you are likely BOTH willfully ignorant and a bigot yourself.

---

by: davidsirota @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 15:44:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

David I enjoy your show

I appreciate your keen political instincts. Although I don't always see what you see I am always glad I have listened as it broadens my perspective.

I don't agree with Ed Perlmutter's assertion that Huffington Post was wrong regarding the language in his amendment to the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009.  This in my opinion would be a disaster. And it's not just the Huffington Post who doesn't agree with him the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) also strongly opposes this amendment for good reason.  In my opinion this would not only give the banks the power to take down the entire global economy which they already have accomplished and been bailed out for but they would also be able to cover it up as well.  I hope this doesn't pass. I am deeply concerned with any legislation that would give banks more power over risk and disclosure.    

"Hehehehehe. Blow me. Clarify that."   by: 2010 Front Page Editor, Colorado Pols, Middle of the Road @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 20:10:07 PM MST

---

by: Sharon Hanson @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:30:26 AM CST