Who Are We?

"All That We Share," a production of Denmark's TV2Danmark, was published January 27, 2017. The video is described by the network as follows: "We live in a time where we quickly put people in boxes. Maybe we have more in common than what we think?" (The video was brought to my attention by Gregory Johnson, Resources For Life.)

Trump has in an instant damaged American soft power but we have also seen lawyers flock to American airports to give free advice, while an American judge has ruled that those with green cards and visas can enter. It is heartening to see American soldiers who served in Iraq standing up for interpreters who worked with them. . . . We have seen the worst of Trump's America but also the best of America in the actions of lawyers, judges and people demonstrating for visitors and refugees. . . . President Roosevelt described the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as a day of infamy. Trump's ill-considered and fruitless actions amount to a self-inflicted day of infamy for America and will long be remembered as the moment that pointlessly alienated America's allies and assisted its enemies.

-- Excerpts from Gary Kent, "America's Sad Day of Infamy," Rudaw [a newspaper and media network based in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq], January 30, 2016 (for additional excerpts, see below.)
____________________
There is little more that can be or need be added to the world's overwhelming negative responses to President Trump's mean-spirited, ill considered, negligently executed, serious blow to our national security and international reputation from his "Executive Order" restricting immigration by refugees and other individuals from seven designated Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen). Made all the worse because he excluded from the ban Muslim countries in which he is doing business, and "Christians" from the seven designated countries (which looks like a violation of the First Amendment's "establishment" and "free exercise" of religion prohibitions).

But I think it is important for all who have access to a blog, or other means of communication, to take a stand at this time for American values. The excerpts from Gary Kent's piece from Kurdistan, recognizing the efforts of Americans to come to the aid of those most adversely and unfairly impacted, is one more reason why public opposition to Trump's action is helpful in retaining as much as possible of America's reputation as a nation of welcoming people. Kent's reaction in this regard is consistent with what I have heard from delegations from Turkey and Russia with whom I met yesterday and today. [Photo credit: AFP.]

So here are some truncated random thoughts about this disaster.

Putting "Terrorism" in Perspective. Obviously, we want, and have every right, to minimize the death and injury of Americans, and damage to our property, from what we call "terrorist acts." (1) But to the extent we're concerned about death, injury and property damage, that which is occasioned in America from "terrorism" is almost statistically insignificant compared with the 400,000 who die from tobacco-related disease, the result of alcohol and drug abuse, or the roughly equivalent numbers (about 35,000) who die from guns or automobile accidents. (2) And to the extent we do care about "terrorist acts" (or "hate crimes" involving death or serious bodily injury) many-to-most are caused by (a) those who would self-identify as "Christian" or non-believers rather than as Muslims, and (b) those -- including Muslims -- who were born in the U.S., or are otherwise legally here rather than refugees or new immigrants. (3) The handful Trump describes as "radical Islamic terrorists" in the U.S. have for the most part (and perhaps exclusively) been known to law enforcement and were "radicalized" here in the United States. In short, the return on this investment of time, effort, money -- and loss of American goodwill -- is not likely to produce much return.

[Since writing this I came upon a CNN presentation, consistent with what is written here, including the fact that you have only a 00.00003% chance of being killed in a foreign-born terrorist attack in the U.S. A.J. Willingham, Paul Martucci and Natalie Leung, "The Chances of a Refugee Killing You -- And Other Surprising Immigration Stats," CNN Politics, January 31, 2017. And see, Philip Bump, "The White House would like America to focus on terror attacks. Let's add context," Washington Post, February 8, 2017.]

Putting the Seven Countries in Perspective. I'm not going to do the research and produce the links to document what follows in this paragraph. But I believe it is a fair reading of what I've seen so far to say that (1) none of the seven countries Trump has chosen (originally singled out by President Obama for other reasons) have produced Muslims who have carried out terrorist attacks in the U.S., (2) he has excluded from his designated list countries those that have produced terrorists who attacked America (e.g., most of those involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York's Twin Towers came from Saudi Arabia), and (3) he has also excluded Muslim countries in which he has business interests. Whatever else one may think of this travel ban, this approach is simply irrational in terms of the stated purpose of the exercise: "to keep Americans safe." If there really were a serious likelihood of a flood of immigrants and refugees coming into the U.S. to do us harm -- because of their Muslim religion -- for which there is no evidence of which I am aware or to which Trump hinted, then the ban should have been applied to all countries with substantial Muslim populations. If a selection of countries was to be made, it would have made more sense to select those, based on past history, most likely to produce those wishing to do us harm rather than these seven.

Was Trump's travel ban an "anti-Muslim" action? He appeared to be stirring up Islamophobia among his supporters during his campaign, promising to do something like what he has just done. And even more telling is what Rudy Giuliani reports regarding his exchange with Trump. Amy B. Wang, "Trump asked for a 'Muslim ban,' Giuliani says -- and ordered a commission to do it 'legally,'" Washington Post, January 29, 2017 ("Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a 'Muslim ban' and requested he assemble a commission to show him 'the right way to do it legally.' Giuliani . . . appeared on Fox News late Saturday [Jan. 28] night to describe how Trump's executive order temporarily banning refugees came together. . . . 'How did the president decide the seven countries?' [Fox News host Jeanine Pirro] asked. . . . 'I'll tell you the whole history of it,' Giuliani responded eagerly. 'So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, "Muslim ban." He called me up. He said, "Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally."'")

Putting the Process in Perspective. The chaos and crises that have followed Trump's action is as good a case study as could be found of why we have government departments and agencies to aid the White House staff and president. Why we have a professional, well-educated, experienced, dedicated, patriotic civil service, bringing their well-informed experience and judgment to bear on why and how some proposals should be pursued and others should not. It appears Trump's idea was not vetted; those who could have helped were not consulted; those who would have to execute it were not informed. For someone who claimed the ability to bring sound American business practices to government, this looked more like someone headed for bankruptcy -- as indeed Trump did when he couldn't even make gambling casinos profitable.

This could go on and on, and you may think it already has. There is much more that could be said, none of it positive. It would be bad enough if imposing travel bans on another country's entire population of a given religion were merely ineffective. In this case, it's much worse. The backlash has already started. Iran has launched a missile, other countries' cabinet officers have been turned away, our universities' international students are nervous, those with "green cards" were initially turned away (before that insanity was walked back), those who served our military as interpreters are not being provided the protection they were promised, American overseas military and tourists are at greater risk, global commerce and airline operations are suffering.

Welcome to the world of government by tweets. Sad.

Who are we? If you didn't watch the video at the top of this blog essay when you began reading, watch it now. That's who we are. That's who we need to rise up and demand we will continue to be.


Additional Excerpts from Gary Kent, "America's Sad Day of Infamy," Rudaw, January 30, 2016

Many feared the worst of President Trump while others hoped he would become more presidential. Such hopes have been dashed by his edict on "extreme vetting" that Times columnist Roger Boyes says is "the bluntest of blunt instruments, sledgehammer-politik." . . . It was announced on Holocaust Memorial Day which reminded people of restrictions preventing Jews escaping the Nazis in the 1930s and ending up in death camps. . . .

Quick footwork by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who persuaded the American authorities to modify the presidential decree so it largely does not apply to British citizens, will slightly lessen the issue. But expect more heartbreaking stories of family division, people being unable to visit dying relatives, start jobs while hundreds of Iraqi interpreters are reported as being in a visa limbo. Daesh must be rubbing its hands in glee. . . .

Our fear last year was that this would chill investment as people found out that going to Kurdistan would complicate later visits to the US. International business groups have expressed fears that the latest ban will harm them. No one denies that the US has the right to patrol its borders and to prevent terrorists from entering the US. But there is no evidence that current measures are failing or that a blanket ban is necessary. . . .

Trump has in an instant damaged American soft power but we have also seen lawyers flock to American airports to give free advice, while an American judge has ruled that those with green cards and visas can enter. It is heartening to see American soldiers who served in Iraq standing up for interpreters who worked with them. We will see in the near future whether further changes can be made and whether the State Department can induce Trump to find a face-saving formula to rescind the order soon. . . .

Trump will probably continue to govern in this disruptive, defiant and divisive manner and this presents big difficulties for America's allies. . . . [Former British Foreign Minister Alistair Burt] suggested that a diplomatic excuse for postponing Trump's planned state visit to the UK in the summer might be wise.

We have seen the worst of Trump's America but also the best of America in the actions of lawyers, judges and people demonstrating for visitors and refugees. . . .

[Professor Eliot Cohen, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] writes in The Atlantic that: "Precisely because the problem is one of [Trump's] temperament and character, it will not get better." Cohen argues it will worsen as power intoxicates Trump and those around him, and probably end in calamity such as substantial domestic protest and violence, broken international economic relationships and major alliances, and one or more new wars, even with China. He would not be surprised if Trump is impeached.

More optimistically Cohen concludes that "There is nothing great about the America that Trump thinks he is going to make; but in the end, it is the greatness of America that will stop him." The ban may be further modified or lifted but leaves a lingering bad taste.

President Roosevelt described the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as a day of infamy. Trump's ill-considered and fruitless actions amount to a self-inflicted day of infamy for America and will long be remembered as the moment that pointlessly alienated America's allies and assisted its enemies.

# # #

First Thoughts on 911 -- 15 Years Later

From 1998 through 2001 I added to my law school teaching and research obligations the tasks of a local school board member -- plus an every-two-week column on K-12 issues in the local paper. As it happened, the final column was written following September 11, 2001, and published September 25. Rereading it recently, I was struck with how little the truths have changed during the course of our multi-trillion-dollar 15 year "war on terror."

For this September 11th, the fifteenth anniversary of that awful day, it seems worthwhile to share the thoughts that came to mind so soon after those events. Here they are. -- N.J.

Teach Our Children Tolerant Ways

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen, "Opinion," September 25, 2001, p. 9A
Oct. 4 [2001] will mark the 44th anniversary of a shock to our nation. Not a deafening explosion. A faint beep from a 183-pound, basketball-sized orbiting satellite. Sputnik meant the Soviet Union was ahead of us in the space race.

Our response? Something called “The National Defense Education Act” – emphasis on “defense.” More money for math, science and foreign language instruction. This time let’s include social studies.

This is the 79th and last column in a series begun Oct. 12, 1998. It was originally planned to be thanks for those who elected me to the School Board, my fellow board members, administrators and staff. A review of the board’s accomplishments. Its remaining agenda. My continuing Web page. And an announcement of the John Haefner Social Studies Award I’ve created through our district’s foundation.

Two weeks of shock, grief and anger from terrorists’ barbaric attacks on our nation changed that.

President Bush urged us to get back to what we were doing before Sept. 11. What was he doing that morning? Campaigning for his education bill.

It’s time for the president and Congress to get back to it.

Some call for a U.S. revenge of violence. Others plead for greater understanding. Either way, education is a major part of the answer.

We have the world’s finest intelligence gathering technology. What we don’t have are enough folks who can translate those millions of conversations and e-mails into English.

How can you spy, let alone infiltrate if you don’t know the language? If you can’t find the country on an outline map? If you know nothing of its people – their history, culture, economic conditions and religion?

We have more military power than many nations combined. And yet we’re still vulnerable. Not to the wars of the last century. Those we could still fight and win. Vulnerable to the wars of this century. Wars without nations, front lines and tanks. Wars fought with cardboard box openers and commercial airliners.

A terrorist used to be “someone who has a bomb but doesn’t have a plane.” Now terrorists use planes as bombs.

It’s good to tighten airline security. But terrorists have many alternatives to bombing buildings with hijacked planes.

Terrorism is not about “winning wars.” It’s not even about death and desgtruction, as such. Terrorism is about fomenting terror.

Terror comes from the innovative and unexpected attack. A bridge, nuclear power plant or natural gas pipeline here. An electric power grid or Internet there. Atom bombs in backpacks. Poisoned air in a subway one day. A water supply another.

Such attacks are easy for perpetrators willing to die. Especially in countries where individual liberties are highly desired and valued.

We don’t want to turn America into an armed camp. But even if we imposed martial law we could not eliminate our vulnerability.

Retaliation may make us feel better. But it will likely increase terrorism.

So what can we do?

Something our school district’s already doing. Encourage children to celebrate – rather than hate – the community’s and world’s diversity.

Prejudice against all Muslims is abhorrent. Attacking Sikhs, thinking them Muslims, reflects basic ignorance as well. We must provide more understanding than do our corporate media about others’ living conditions. Whom do they blame for their misery? Their oppressive regimes? What attracts them to a bin Laden?

America is a generous nation. But it’s also capable of overt and covert government and corporate practices that oppress and exploit others for convenience and profit.

Practices often seen as arrogant. Policies reflecting ignorance of others’ cultures.

Such ignorance contributed to our misjudgments in Vietnam, the hostage taking in Iran and this terrorist attack. Not to mention failecd global marketing efforts.

Our students will be better able than we to deal with the globalism and terrorism we leave them. Is education the only answer? Of course not. But it’s an imperative beginning. And it’s something we can do.

Goodbye, and thanks for the opportunity to serve.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson is an Iowa City School Board member. More information is available on his Web site: www.nicholasjohnson.org.

# # #

Understanding Terrorist Thugs

If you're looking for material regarding University of Iowa, its new President Bruce Harreld, and the Iowa Board of Regents, CLICK HERE.

ISIS/ISIL is Neither Islamic Nor a State

Related: Nicholas Johnson, "Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2015; Nicholas Johnson, "Syria's Refugees: Job One and Job Two," The Gazette, November 1, 2015; Nicholas Johnson, "Ten Questions for Bush Before War," The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003


Understanding Terrorist Thugs
Nicholas Johnson
The Daily Iowan, December 3, 2015, p. A4

What Motivates 'Terrorist Thugs'?
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, December 20, 2015, p. C4
What is the ultimate goal of those terrorist thugs in Iraq and Syria with their random, if organized, attacks on innocent Westerners?

Until we figure that out, our responses run a serious risk of making us less, rather than more, safe.

Here’s a possible explanation.

In their minds, this is not a battle against the West as an ultimate goal. It is a battle for the hearts and minds of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims, designed to bring them into the thugs’ ambit. To achieve this, they need two things. They need evidence the West is, in fact, waging a war on Islam that puts all Muslims in danger. And they need plausibly to argue they offer Muslims protection from hostile Westerners. Where? In a state of their own, their Islamic Caliphate (Arabic for “successor;” in this case successor to the Prophet Mohammed).

To do this they want and need war with the West. Like a bully looking for a fight, terrorist acts that provoke our response of war serve their cause. What better evidence of a war than our organizing coalitions, bombing their territory, and sending in troops? When our leaders oblige, and then call this a “war” or “clash of cultures,” they just help the terrorists’ cause.

When our governors refuse to accept suffering Syrian refugees or say we should admit Christian but not Syrian Muslims, it further confirms the thugs’ case. When Muslims needing our protection are rejected by us, we leave them no option but to look to these thugs for protection.

We further aid their cause when we buy into the assertion that they do, in fact, control a state, using the reference they prefer: “Islamic State” (in the acronyms ISIS and ISIL).

That is why the name used here is “terrorist thugs” rather than any mention of their “state.”

Do they enjoy killing Westerners, by whatever means? Yes. They probably even get a chuckle from our seeming inability to find them with our global, industrial-grade surveillance — and then, when we do, our failures to use and share the results.

But it’s highly unlikely they share Hitler’s vision of taking over the territory of Europe and the United Sates or killing us all. Their goal does not require, nor do they have, such resources. That’s why they welcome our providing the video images of a war waged inside their state. Meanwhile, their public-relations media experts are tasked with the global distribution of recruiting material, along with claims of credit for events such as the downed Russian airliner and the coordinated Paris killings. [Photo credit: Daily Iowan/Associated Press, Evan Vucci]

We calmly accept 30,000 gun deaths every year as our constitutional right, but panic at the prospect of up to 1/10th of 1 percent more killings from terrorist acts. We erect buildings’ physical barriers, increase military and police presence, search fans at college football stadiums, and perform a theater of ineffective “security” in airports. Since the thugs’ provocations involve terrorism rather than war, every time we appear terrorized, more points are put up on their scoreboard.

Suppose a traditional war could be fought there, with a uniformed enemy, and frontlines on battlefields (rather than killing innocents in urban warfare). Even if we won, what then? Why would it be any different from the last time, when we imposed a Shiite government on the formerly ruling Sunnis, chaos reigned, and the opportunist Sunni tribal leaders looked to the thugs for stability?

Some of these tribes have hundreds, even thousands, of years of history. The last time they helped us, we turned our backs and left them to struggle. Why should they trust us now?

But they may be our only hope. Fighting terrorism is like a game of whack-a-mole. The more we kill the more recruits they get. New thugs-in-chief replace the old. Tribal leaders are our only long term hope. In Iraq, all wars as well as politics are local.
____________________
Nicholas Johnson, as U.S. Maritime administrator, managed sealift to Vietnam and maintains FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #

Syria, Terrorism, Craziness and Common Sense

If you're looking for material regarding University of Iowa, its new President Bruce Harreld, and the Iowa Board of Regents, CLICK HERE.

Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2015, p. A11
There’s so much craziness involved in our response to “terrorism,” and potential Syrian refugees. Where to begin?

Let’s start with risk assessment.

It turns out that fear of dying in a terrorist attack is like a two-pack-a-day cigarette smoker with a fear of flying.

About 3000 people died in the Twin Towers collapse, September 11, 2001. But that number die every month of every year from guns. An equal number die every month in automobiles. Over 7000 die every month from alcohol related causes. Tobacco contributes to 40,000 deaths a month – a risk for our cigarette smoker 10,000 or more times greater than airlines. [Photo credit: Unknown]

Your risks from the most bizarre accident you can imagine is greater than your risk of a terrorist act.

Will we have more U.S. radical jihadist terrorist attacks? Probably; mostly home grown. Can we stop all of them? Of course not. Would more NSA surveillance of Americans help? Probably not. There was advance intelligence about terrorists’ suspicious flight training, and Osama bin Laden’s intention to strike New York. The Russians told us about the Boston Marathon bombers. ISIS’ attacks in Paris were masterminded by someone well known to authorities. Making the haystack bigger doesn’t make the needle easier to find.

It has been suggested that we admit Christians from Syria, but not Muslims – indeed that all U.S. Muslims be issued identity cards and entered in a database.

There are so many thing wrong with such violations of our values and Constitution. We don‘t punish religions. Moreover, if we’re going to do it anyway, we need to single out Christians not Muslims. Christians have committed multiples more domestic terrorist acts than Muslims.

When emotions run high, we need to recall our shame at refusing to welcome German Jewish refugees before World War II. Provoked by politicians, Americans’ fear the Jews might be communists caused our government to turn the Jews’ boats around and send them back to their death at the hands of Nazis.

If we’re going to respond to events in Paris with anything beyond what we’re already doing, refusing to take Syrian refugees is one of the worst things we could do. Not only will it fail to make us safer, it will help to make ISIS stronger.

Focusing on Syrians rather than Europeans is like focusing on Afghans after planeloads of Saudis, funded by other Saudis, brought down the Twin Towers. Not only were the Paris bombers Europeans, not Syrians, as such they could easily enter the U.S. as tourists.

Nearly 35 million foreigners visit our country every year – many don’t even need visas. If we don’t fear admitting those 35 million, without vetting them, by what logic do we refuse to take 10,000 Syrians who have gone through years of the most intense vetting imaginable?

Since 9/11 we have admitted 785,000 refugees into our country. During those 14 years only three have been arrested on terrorism-related charges. That’s 0.0004 of 1 percent. There’s no credible reason to believe our vetting of Syrians will be significantly less successful.

Over 10 million Syrians have left their homes. Europe has welcomed them. We can’t accept 1/10th of 1% of that number?

Bear in mind, ISIS is not trying to take over our 3 million square miles, or kill our 300 million people. This is not your grandfather’s war. ISIS is just trying to terrorize us, to make us fearful. When we build more chain-link fences and hire more security guards, when we can’t enter an airplane – or even a college football stadium – without being frisked or x-rayed, they’ve won.

Our military presence in the Middle East has helped them recruit far more suicide bombers than we’ve ever killed. And our leaving Syria’s young people with no option but to join ISIS will do the same.
___________________
Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City native, managed sealift to Viet Nam when serving as U.S. Maritime Administrator, and maintains FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #

Americans' Security, Yes; Attacking Muslims, No

March 14, 2011, 1:40 p.m.

Congressman King Poses Threat to National Security
Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.; 1908-1957) "was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate. . . . Today the term ["McCarthyism"] is used more generally in reference to demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents." "Joseph McCarthy," wikipedia.org.

Having lived through the years of Senator Joseph McCarthy's ruthlessness, I can't let Representative Peter King's recent attacks on Muslims go without comment. Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Laurie Goodstein, "Domestic Terrorism Hearing Opens With Contrasting Views on Dangers," New York Times, March 11, 2011, p. A15; Petula Dvorak, "For many Muslim Americans, King’s hearings add to weight of community’s burden," Washington Post, March 10, 2011. Photo Credit: Stephen Crowley/The New York Times.

Concern for our country's national security is not only appropriate for members of Congress, it is one of their highest responsibilities.

But doing so by focusing on the members of a single ethnic group or religion has the appearance of a pursuit fueled more by prejudice at best, or political strategy uber alles without regard to consequences at worst, than thoughtful protection of Americans.

Let's take a look at security, terrorism, and other threats to Americans in context.

For starters, the word "terrorism" is so loosely used that it's not at all clear what it does and does not cover, as I've written at some length elsewhere. See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006:

President Bush at one time said that those who finance, or “harbor” terrorists and their training camps, are as much our enemy as those who attack us.

OK, but surely we don't want to argue that it is only "terrorism" when others do it to us. And yet, if not, how do we justify "harboring" -- to use President Bush's word – the American Catholics who were financing terrorist acts of the IRA against Protestants in Ireland?

What about the "harboring" of our former "School of the Americas" (“SOA”) training camp in Georgia? It's trained those we've called "freedom fighters," and others might call “terrorists,” in Central and South America.

School of the Americas Watch charges that, "Graduates of the SOA are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America.” Does that make the former School of the Americas a terrorist training camp?

Apparently our government thinks not. At least there was no known plan to bomb the State of Georgia -- to be distinguished from our military forces sent to the Republic of Georgia.

Should we have bombed the State of Idaho [Timothy McVeigh's residence] after the Oklahoma City bombing?

And speaking of those supporting the IRA, as an ironic additional example, Congressman King has himself been a supporter of what can legitimately (and has been) designated as a "terrorist organization" -- the IRA. Scott Shane, "For Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past," New York Times, March 9, 2011, p. A1 ("For Representative Peter T. King, as he seizes the national spotlight this week with a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims, it is the most awkward of résumé entries. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army.").

"Terrorism" is not the only, or even the worst, threat to our security and well being. Just ask the Japanese. "March 11 Earthquake and Tsunami," March 11, 2011. No terrorists were involved in that disaster.

As noted in that blog entry, one of the most useful inquiries Congress might undertake is a study of what we can learn from the Japanese preparation for, and response to, such disasters. Why, and in what ways, are they seemingly so much better organized and responsive than we were in our response to, say, Katrina? Alan Greenblatt, "Japanese Preparedness Likely Saved Thousands," NPR, March 13, 2011.

What is our government doing, for example, in the face of the U.S. chemical industry's resistance to security measures designed to prevent, or at least minimize, the consequences of spills of toxic chemicals or gases? "DHS eager to start monitoring chemical plant safety," DHS, Homeland Security Newswire, February 23, 2006 ("We have been critical of the chemical industry’s evasion of responsibility for the public welfare, and its stubborn resistance, until very recently, to any meaningful security measures in its more than 15,000 U.S. plants, including the 400 or so which pose the highest risk of mass-casualty catastrophes. . . . The problem now is that Congress has not yet passed legislation to extend DHS regulatory authority over chemical plants.").

It was a mite ironic that, at the same time Rep. King was attacking Muslims, the President and Mrs. Obama were hosting a conference at the White House on bullying. Jackie Calmes, "Obamas Focus on Antibullying Efforts," New York Times, March 11, 2011, p. A18. Terrorism? Make no mistake, to a young child it is -- as the occasional suicide makes clear. (Not incidentally, "[Timothy] McVeigh claimed to have been a target of bullying at school and that he took refuge in a fantasy world where he retaliated against those bullies." Timothy McVeigh, wikipedia.org.)

And to the extent that, what let us call "extremists," engage in bombing or other use of force in attacking civilians at random, any rational and fair look at the problem requires a much broader view than King's focus on one religious group -- as R.J. Matson so colorfully explains:

Credit: R.J. Matson, St. Louis Post Dispatch; Web page; biography; this cartoon.

If you can't read the text, Matson shows "Chairman Peter King" connecting the dots that spell "Muslims," while saying "All of those other dots don't need connecting" -- the dots related to "Anti-abortion zealots" (some of whom advocate assassinating abortion doctors), "Right-wing militias," "IRS haters," "Neo-Nazis" and "Al-Qaida."

An organization that has for years tracked homegrown terrorism is the Southern Poverty Law Center. As one of its recent reports notes, notwithstanding "historic Republican gains, the early signs suggest that even as the more mainstream political right strengthens, the radical right has remained highly energized. In an 11-day period this January, a neo-Nazi was arrested headed for the Arizona border with a dozen homemade grenades; a terrorist bomb attack on a Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in Spokane, Wash., was averted after police dismantled a sophisticated anti-personnel weapon; and a man who officials said had a long history of antigovernment activities was arrested outside a packed mosque in Dearborn, Mich., and charged with possessing explosives with unlawful intent. That’s in addition, the same month, to the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, an attack that left six dead and may have had a political dimension." Mark Potok, "The Year in Hate & Extremism, 2010," Southern Poverty Law Center, Intelligence Report, Issue Number 141, Spring 2011.

Nor are things getting better. As the Southern Poverty Law Center reports,

"Hate groups topped 1,000 for the first time since the Southern Poverty Law Center began counting such groups in the 1980s. Anti-immigrant vigilante groups, despite having some of the political wind taken out of their sails by the adoption of hard-line anti-immigration laws around the country, continued to rise slowly. But by far the most dramatic growth came in the antigovernment 'Patriot' movement — conspiracy-minded organizations that see the federal government as their primary enemy — which gained more than 300 new groups, a jump of over 60%."

A genuine, honest, look at the range of threats confronting Americans might be useful, depending on how it was done. Focusing on a single religion -- especially in a way that only strengthens Al Qaida, and any extremists tempted to join them -- is not.