In a speech at the recent annual Conservative Political Action Conference (Feb. 2010), Glenn Beck claimed: “What we don’t have a right to is health care, housing or hand-outs,” He said “we.”

Let us examine that statement with respect to health care.

A basic law of life is survival.  In emerging, primitive or civilized societies, individuals ban together to develop and institute, to a varying extent, social and political institutions that enhance the good and welfare of the members of the society and through them, the status of the society, i.e.,  help assure survival.  One  mechanism is designed for assuring adequate food and water supplies; another is designed for defense; another mechanism establishes a program for educating its young.  And still another mechanism is a system of sanitation and health care.  All members of the society are expected to contribute to the maintenance of these societal infrastructures.

As populations grew and societies became more complex, the social and political institutions also became more complex.  However, in all cases the people retained that basic understanding that their existence was based on a mutual interdependence.. As a result the people understood that they had an obligation to help care for the infirm.  I will not debate the fact that along the way to developing our current society, there were practices introduced whose civility could be questioned and, whose practices left a lot to be desired: children, who were not considered to be healthy or were of the wrong sex or who manifested some deformity  were deliberately left to die.  The inequities and cruelties associated with the rise of economic classes were best described by Charles Dickens.

From Glenn Beck’s statement, I gather that he would like to return to the days of Charles Dickens and just let people who cannot afford health care to just die – they “don’t have a right to health care.”
I guess his motto and for those who follow him is “Drop Dead,” do not be a burden on our society.

The founding fathers of the American Constitution were well aware that a civilized society does have an obligation to maintain the health and welfare of all its members. In the preamble to the Constitution, they inserted several requirements for a civilized society as axioms: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare…” These are indisputable givens!  They are, in essence, guarantees that these aims of developing a more perfect union are what we, as a society, will strive to do and, the  result of our endeavors, benefits will ensue.

Please note that whereas Glenn Beck excluded “we” from having a right to the general welfare – what is health care if not promoting the general welfare? – the Founding Fathers thought it appropriate to include the “we” as having a right to the promotion of the general welfare..

Over the years, Congress introduced a variety of institutions designed to aid the promotion of the general welfare.  Several of these institutions related to health care.  For example the entire medical research oriented education system and the introduction of the modern medical delivery system was a direct outgrowth of the Abraham Flexner report in the early part of the 20th century.  Eventually Congress set up the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation whose support of basic and applied research led – and is still leading – to rapid and great advances in medicine.  All of this was publicly funded through taxes.

It seems right (just) to me that people who paid for this research have a right to expect to reap the benefits of their investment..  Thus, “we” the people do have a right to health care.

“We” paid for it.

I realize that which I wrote has wide ramifications including impinging on insurance, health care delivery and other matters.  I will leave those topics for another day.

The unconscionable murder of members of the Biology Department at the University of Alabama at  Huntsville, presumably by Amy Bishop, a professor who had just been denied tenure cannot help but raise the issue of the personal and social significance of tenure.  Although there exist descriptions of the stresses and strains of academic life on scholars in academe, I am not aware of any systematic study that has examined this issue. This admission on my part does not mean that such data are not available.  I know some anecdotal stories. I am not sure if there ever was a detailed study as to what detrimental effects the denial of tenure had on persons throughout the decades of its existence.

I intend to concentrate on what tenure is and its social/political significance.  I think it is important for the public to understand what tenure is and what is its social/political significance.  From my experience, I realized that the concept of tenure is greatly misunderstood and has been used derisively in characterizing academicians.  Periodically, there are political movements  claiming tenure is an outmoded concept that interferes with implementing new educational policies and, therefore, has to be discarded.  In actuality, there are two aspects to the discussion of tenure that must be confronted: tenure in higher education – at the level of colleges, universities and post graduate schools, and tenure at the el-hi level.  I will be limiting my remarks to higher education, keeping in mind, that by so doing I am not disparaging or casting aspersions of tenure for the el-hi faculty.

Tenure is associated very intimately with the entire culture of each specific institution as well as with the general culture surrounding academia and with most particularly with the concept of academic freedom..

Tenure is a means of assuring academic freedom.  Tenure is a form of job security.  Tenure protects the jobs of scholars from arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of current and future administrators, boards of directors, politicians and even irate parents, for reasons unrelated to the educational process.  These actions could be anything from personality conflicts, to differences in social, political and religious outlooks, racial, religious or sexual differences, or any other nonsensical and non-professional reason that the facile, inventive and imaginative human mind could conceive.

Tenure is usually awarded after a probationary period of about seven years, or less. in which the budding scholar on a “tenure-track” position can prove itself worthy of having the institution promise to devote resources to maintaining its position for the rest of the working life of the individual.  Seen from that perspective one should deduce that tenure is a means of assuring specific goals for the individual and the institution.  For the individual there are two important goals, i.e., economic security and academic freedom as it pursues its scholarly career: for the institution, tenure is a means whereby it can attract and maintain productive scholars and thereby fulfill the aims and goals of its mission statement – a formal statement which defines, in broad terms, the institutions  duties and responsibilities to students and society.

Tenure is a means whereby talented individuals could be attracted to make a career in a field of their interest.  Tenure is one means whereby institutions attract future scholars.

There are duties and responsibilities associated with being granted tenure. I do not want to delve into this aspect of tenure.  Instead I want to briefly discuss aspects of what is involved in being granted tenure.

Being granted tenure is not guaranteed even if an institution provides mentors and honest annual or other periodic reviews for assessing the individual’s progress.  Generally speaking, consideration for tenure is supposed to be based on the productivity of the faculty member under consideration.  Productivity includes three areas: teaching, research (scholarly activity) and service.  Usually, the service component is the least important.  Depending on the role and scope of an institution, more emphasis will be placed on teaching or research.

This is not the time and place to explore all the complexities of what is involved in assessing an individual’s teaching.  The criteria for assessing productivity depends on one’s disciplinary field and area of expertise.  The area of service has at least three levels to it: there is service within the institution – either on the departmental level or the college or university level; there is service to the community in which one resides or in which the institution is located, and there is service to one or more professional disciplinary organizations to which an individual belongs.  Each institution will place different degrees of importance to each of these activities.

All of the above can be quantified or semi-quantified.  There is the easy aspect of quantity.  However, assessing quality of scholarly works could be more elusive, especially if factors such as originality, influence in the field, utility or concepts of depth or superficiality and the journals in which the work appears are included.  However, in making tenure decisions there are also many qualitative factors that come into consideration over which the candidate has no control.  For example, there is the very elusive concept of collegiality.  This  protean term has great influence on tenure decisions.  Similarly, there are other qualitative factors over which a tenure candidate has no control.  All of these factors are considered either on a conscious or subconscious level and can be used for or against a candidate depending on the political make-up of the committees making the decision and and personalities of its members.  All of this has to be weighed in light of the vagaries of the culture of the university.

Denial of tenure, the full reasons for which may not have to be told to the candidate, could easily be based on such uncertainties.  Is it any wonder that a person, given the right set of circumstances, could snap.  Saying this, does not condone what happened at UAH.

Tenure decisions have great significance not just for the concerned individuals, but also for the long term interests of the institution and for the society it serves.  They should not be made lightly.  Unfortunately, this may not always be the case.

CNN’s report (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html) about Iran’s nuclear designs, potential, and current status is quite frightening.  If Iran does construct a nuclear warhead, it is not just Israel that has a lot to fear, but all the nations in the Middle East.  If there is any one thing that could and would destabilize the current political situation in the ME, a nuclear Iran is it.  I doubt if there is a nation in the M.E. that wants to live under Iranian hegemony.  It would not surprise me to find that Saudi Arabia and the other nations now will start clamoring for aid in building their nuclear facilities and for having the superpowers engage in a bidding war for providing it with a missile defense system.  And, do not think, for one moment, that this is not going to be tied in with the availability of oil and the price of oil.

The fact that Iran has proceeded this far I consider to be a failure of the Obama administration to confront a reality.  Israel has consistently brought to Pres. Obama’s attention Iranian desires and actions.  Instead of letting Israel take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Pres. Obama, for the past year, put a stranglehold on Israel and also denied Israel the right to fly over Iraq.  Apparently Pres. Obama thought that through negotiations he could convince the Iranians to stop their nuclear endeavors.  Yet, while all the negotiations were proceeding, so was the Iranian nuclear development program.  All the negotiations did was to provide Iran with the time to enhance its nuclear capabilities.

It took mighty big egos to engage in this chess game.  It seems to me that we have just witnessed a big prick in the Obama-ballooned ego and a a huge increase in the size of the Ahmadinejad ego.  Has Pres. Obama been checked or check-mated?  How much of an effect this development will have on their subsequent behavior, remains to be seen.

I have the impression, that Pres. Obama is not going to veer from his policy of talk and sanctions.  As I read the article, Pres. Obama still thinks sanctions can be applied.  This must be a joke.  Without Chinese and Russian cooperation, there are no sanctions that the West can apply that would deter Iran from its stated goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.  I do not know what is so difficult for Pres. Obama to understand that China and Russia seem to have their own agendas.  It is quite apparent, at least to me, that, despite numerous opportunities to do so, Pres. Obama, thus far, has failed to convince them otherwise.

Without Chinese and Russian help, the west has not been able to apply meaningful sanctions against North Korea.  Why does Pres. Obama think such an action would be effective against Iran?

As an age of darkness seems to be descending on the world, I can only think of Neville Chamberlain holding a peace of paper and saying, peace in our time.

In its extreme form, political libertarianism, as I understand it, seems to be somewhat nonsensical.   As a political theory,  libertarianism espouses two views that are incompatible with a functioning society, let alone a safe society.   Libertarianism embraces maximum liberty for all individuals – in all aspects of life – and, ideally, no government.   Those who are willing to accept a minimalist government, as a compromise, are not pure libertarians.

Perhaps a libertarian concept of no government was best expressed by Grover Norquist,  a noted activist and strategist in behalf of conservative causes - and author of the (in)famous statement (depending on one’s political philosophy) depicting Conservatives’ view of government: get the government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”.

I do not intend to engage in a complete analysis of Norquist’s statement.  Instead, I just want to apply some critical thinking to see where it takes us.

If the end result is to establish the extreme, to really do away with government (drown it in the bathtub), wouldn’t the easiest way to get rid of government be to abolish the Constitution?  Is not the Constitution the very essence and basis of government?  Is not a constitution a social contract under which people are willing to relinquish a certain degree of their liberty so as to live collectively in peace and in which they agree to set up a system whereby rules and regulations for assuring their safety and security would be implemented?  Any one who ever studied civics 101 knows that one important function of government is to establish and maintain order – safety and security – in society.

A society without government is true anarchy.  There would be no need for any policies.  There would and could be no government (drowned in the bathtub) to adopt and enforce them.  Of course, issues such as property and water rights would be settled either by negotiations or by arms.  I leave it your imaginations as to which course of action would prevail – hint: think of the situation in the early West in the US, before and even after barbed wire was used to demarcate boundaries.

In an anarchistic society, the only law and order that would or could prevail is that imposed by the force of arms: only a luftmensch would think otherwise.  Under anarchic conditions the rich conservatives would have their private mercenary armies impose their order (government!  that very thing they oppose)  so as to safeguard their interests.  The rich would have their mercenaries kill anyone who threatens their interests, disagrees with them or who fails to obey them.  If this scenario has somewhat of an ancient and  medieval ring to it, it is meant to.  Is not such a societal philosophy pretty close to what people lived under for centuries?   Not anarchy, but imposed order.  Why were there all these walled cities?  And, order was imposed in these cities by the rich and powerful and given religious sanction by the Church.  Is not this the reason why European history is replete with internecine warfare even after the city states were abolished and nations came into existence? Is not such societies the reason whereby Robin Hood stories arose?

It would then seem that the supporter’s of an anarchist society prefer societal chaos that would be made worse by an expanding population.  But anarchy, cannot long exist.

I find it difficult to accept that Norquist, and his more rational followers really want to do away with all government.  Perhaps his statement should be interpreted to mean that government should be so small, that if we so desire, then we could easily drown it in a bathtub.  Drowning in the bathtub would be a metaphor for how small the federal government should be.  In that sense, Norquist would be considered a “minarchist.”

It would seem that, philosophically, he, and his followers, would want to have all government work at the lowest possible level so that the people could have the maximum say.  Such a view proposes that such governments are more responsive to the people and more efficient in their operations.   Such a political position is quite rational.  There are profound economic, political and social consequences that accompany a “minarchist” philosophy.  It would seem that such a government would be designed for either an agrarian society or a  more Utopian world.  I would hope that Norquist and his followers would be interested in having a small, democratically run society, as opposed to one in which order is imposed.

What disturbs me, is that, for whatever reasons, I seem to be hearing an imposed order with religious roots rather than calls for a democratically ordered society.

Yes, there are legitimate philosophical differences between those who want a small functioning federal government and a large government.

The question really seems to be: Which form of government is better suited for meeting the needs of a society in the dangerous, highly competitive, scientifically, technologically and complex world in which we live?

I would like to hear such debates on a variety of issues with all the political grandstanding and B.S. eliminated.

In the initial reports about Amy Bishop, the assistant professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville who allegedly killed her colleagues in the Biology Department for denying her tenure, there was great emphasis placed on her being trained at Harvard University.

Those reports and commentary aroused my curiosity: What was the relationship between her training at Harvard and the subsequent murderous actions?

By reporting and commenting on the story the way they did, it seemed to me that the reporters and commentators might have been in possession of additional information which they were not sharing with the public.

I have not yet seen any article that explored that aspect of the subject.  I am delighted that I had not held my breath while awaiting such a report.  As of this posting, no such analysis seems to have emerged.

I am left wondering: Would she still have behaved similarly if she had been trained elsewhere?

There are other alternative questions:

Was the public exposed to ridiculous reporting by reporters who know not what they were doing? Perhaps these reporters did not realize the import of their words implying that her alleged actions were related to her Harvard training.

Do these reporters and commentators have a particular animus toward Harvard?

Or,  did these reporters and commentators want the public to conclude that Harvard is or has become an incubator for professors who murder if they are denied tenure?

What does such asinine reporting say about the critical thinking skills of these reporters and commentators and, by extension, the quality of their education?

If we are permitted to take this thinking one step further, we can then ask:  What was the quality of their entire education?  And, what is the status of education in American colleges and universities? – assuming that the individuals who did the reporting and commentating had earned at least a BA degree or, more likely, a degree in B.S.

While in the gym, early this A.M., I turned on the TV to a news channel – to distract me from the tediousness of the exercise, and the first thing I heard was the latest gossip about Tiger Woods.  Admittedly, he is a great golfer.  Since I do not follow professional sports, except in a perfunctory way, it really makes no difference to me.  The truth is that even when I was an avid sports fan (my ardor greatly waned at the age of 19), the off-field antics of the athletes had little meaning to me.  I was, and to some extent still am, a far better participant than a spectator.  I rather toss the football, shoot hoops or toss the baseball than watch the game.  Participation did and does more for me than does spectating.  The exception to my professed behavior, not surprisingly, is when either our children or grandchildren were or are in the game.

I don’t know about you, but I never had any interest in the peccadilloes or other private behaviors of any of the entertainment industry’s (sports is part of the entertainment industry) egotistical, self-proclaimed stars and starlets.  I am tired of hearing about Tiger Woods, Jen, Angela, Brad et al.   It seems that I am surrounded by and inundated with their nonsensical behavior – radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, there is no end.  When we go to the supermarket and I am either waiting on line or placing the food on the conveyor belt, I, inevitably and unavoidably,  find myself starring at the headlines and pictures of the tabloids that are deliberately placed on one side of the aisle with magazines and their salacious or suggestive headlines on the other side, at such a level so that I. and other customers, cannot miss the sensationalism.  And, I silently scream: “Who cares”?

Unfortunately, too many people do care.  There is no doubt that people need some distraction from their daily grinds and perhaps drab lives.  Perhaps some people derive pleasure from such escapes and from vicarious living.

In the United States, and probably throughout the world, the cult of personality has been so strongly developed that it has become a distraction from the more important issues facing a country and the world.   One unfortunate result has been the rise of the paparazzi, whose behavior to satisfy the public’s seemingly insatiable voyeurism is so despicable that it even led to the unnecessary death of Princess Diana.

Presumably, media-created personalities are used, and in some cases promoted,  as role models for the young.  Teachers and political leaders of our society should be railing against the cult of personality.  Instead, we find  the concept and practice of media-created “personalities” has become so entrenched that even the members of Congress are not immune to the deadliness of their influence.   How else can one explain Congress permitting someone like Tom Cruise – admittedly a fine actor – to testify before a Congressional Committee about the profession of  psychiatry and proposing, if not demanding, that his scientifically unproven beliefs (not facts) in the dogma of a deliberately created religion by a sci-fi writer be substituted for the great advances that are slowly being made in understanding the myriad complex functions of the human brain?  Yet, so many more, better and highly qualified professional people, whose names are not known to the public, are required to sit by quietly, never having a chance to testify, and listen to him spout his unscientific nonsense simply because he is a well known actor.  Shame on Congress.  Shame on the news media.

There are deadly societal consequences resulting from the cult of personality: the most important being the anti-intellectualism that it promotes.  It promotes the concept that because someone is a well known entertainment personality they have expertise in fields far from their entertainment talents and abilities and should be listened to.   As Tevye said in THE FIDDLER ON THE ROOF:  “When you are rich,. people really think you know.”  It promotes irrationality, it promotes the concept of beliefs over fact, beliefs over knowledge.  It glorifies inane behavior.

Are there any positive attributes to the cult of personality?  Part of the answer is a qualified yes, and the other part is, there could be.  The “qualified yes:”  it creates jobs for media people who can then sit and either write or talk about this  nonsense in the print and electronic media outlets.  The “could be:”  it would depend on which personalities the media would emphasize, i.e., a Paul Newman v a Cruise, Hilton, Spears, Lohan and their ilk.  Need I say more?

What a society we live in.  There should be no wonder as to why our educational system is in disarray and the public is being continually screwed by Congress while  society is being distracted by more important issues such as which media darling is screwing who.

But, then again, we should not be surprised that there is a cult of personality.  After all, there are two major religions of the world that are completely based on the cult of personality.  This religious connection provided the  important soil in which this idea and practice could germinate and grow.

I know people who love TV medical shows of which one of the current rages is HOUSE, the adventures of a mean, curmudgeonly, aggressive, drug addicted physician who has great diagnostic abilities and, who, by the end of an hour, has solved an important medical dilemma concerning at least one patient.  I have seen this show only a few times, and was appalled by its presentation of modern medicine.

As an aside, I have never seen a single episode of Grey’s Anatomy, Private Practice, ER or Chicago Hope, other popular medically oriented shows.

I am sure that the producers of House and the other similar shows hire medical consultants.  What I have difficulty in understanding – considering the way modern medicine is presented on HOUSE and, by extension, probably the other shows -  is how this individual could or would even attach its name to the credits as a consultant.  Perhaps these consultants have no control over how their advice is to be heeded.  For certain, I do not fault them for taking the money.

Another aside: I have come to prefer “its” to either the use of “his” or the more politically correct “her” or the awkward “his/her” since “its” is sexually neutral and more inclusive

I would hope that the viewing public would be aware that no physician who has such a severe drug addiction would be permitted to practice medicine in a modern, city or private hospital.  Although this addiction is alluded to during the show and, perhaps House. at one time may have been forced into a treatment facility, there is no way that a hospital could or would put its reputation at risk by having drug addicted physicians on its  staff.

There is so much wrong with the way the art and practice of medicine is being presented on TV, also the movies, that it would make a great topic for a master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation.  I would not be surprised if some graduate student hasn’t already done that.  If it hasn’t been done, then perhaps someone should do it.

I realize that there is a potential conflict between the practice of medicine and the drama that is required to sustain audience interest.  Yet, I see no reason why medical accuracy has to be sacrificed while retaining suspense.  After all, there should be  a responsibility not to give the viewing public a false impression of science and medicine.

As an aside, I admit that the show does portray at least one reality, i.e., the difficulty in making diagnoses and that false diagnoses not only can be made but are made.

I also realize that my saying there should be a responsibility on part of the producers will get me into trouble with the readers of this BLOG.  I have no doubt that there will be people who will be quick to point out all the other societal concerns where there should be responsible behavior on part of producers.  The odds are that I will probably agree with their sentiments.

By the way, the entertainment industry’s presentation of professors and scientists is equally appalling.  I could not help but caricature the “Hollywood” version of scientists in my classrooms or public presentations.  I knew I was being fairly accurate in my portrayal when I would ask people to describe their perceptions of what professors and, especially scientists, are like.  Inevitably, they would agree with my caricature.

Yes, the entertainment’s portrayal of science and medicine does affect public perception, to the ultimate detriment of society.

Unfortunately, this negative portrayal of science and medicine in society is aided and abetted by fundamentalist religion’s on-going and insatiable attacks on science and medicine, with particular attention to attacking science education, and by the unconscionable actions of seemingly scientifically ignorant, pandering politicians.

By the way, an excellent example of some of what I am referring to is Ben Stein’s ridiculous film “EXPELLED.”  This film was a complete waste of money that, in all likelihood, will end up as a cult film that will be shown in churches that teach and preach such idiocy.  I could not help but think that as bad as the film was, the TV  advertisements in which he appeared touting the movie, were worse.

Is there any wonder why the USA is not so slowly losing its status as the world leader in science?  Think about it.

Recently, I was discussing my views on the state of political criticism in the USA with one of my e-mail friends using Israel as a paradigm.  During our conversation he made an observation about me that fairly describes my approach to issues.  I obtained his permission to use that quote.  I would like to share this quote with you so that you would understand how I, an independent, thinks and operates.

Perhaps, those whose comments I choose not to post will now have a better understanding of my actions.

I am well aware of the fact that when people comment they think that their ideas are without peer and are replete with common sense.  I understand why they take it as a personal insult that I would dare to find their thoughts unsuitable for public display and for further comment from me.

I will let Texas Jim’s words speak for me:

“Your response to me demonstrates a person who seeks truth probably because of your background. In your business false information is useless and can lead to costly mistakes and failure. As hard as it is for most of us who get emotionally involved in politics we need to do as you do and seek the truth and scrape away the BS that is always involved in political discussions. This nation is very emotionally polarized politically…”

Wall Street Journal Article On Obama Demonstrates Closet Racism

Early this A.M. (Feb. 11) I was sent an article about President Obama from the Wall Street Journal Forum by Eddie Sessions (probably appeared Feb 9 or 10 in the WSJ).   I would like to share with you my analysis of that WSJ critique that I sent to the correspondent.  You should be aware that I detest racism in any form.

Dear ________

There is much truth in that analysis. However, I certainly would not call Obama a dummy. That is unnecessary name calling and demonstrates an evil animus agenda that has  no place in civilized discourse.  And, this came from a man who, in that same article, railed against the name calling of McCain and Palin.
If he is so opposed to name calling, then why did he engage in it?
Please, that unnecessary and uncalled for behavior indicates that it is his hatred for Obama that colored his approach to understanding who Obama is and where he came from and, thereby, negates the thrust of his article.  It is no longer an honest critique but a cherry picked conglomeration of information designed to demonstrate that Obama, a Black man, got where he is as a result of white endeavors.

In fact, as a result of the author’s last remark, I concluded that an impression I was getting as I read the article, that the author was a closet racist, was not just strengthened but proved.

How can he deny that Obama is a highly educated and highly literate man, far more so than either, McCain, Palin or Bush.  If Obama is a dummy, then what are they?

And, need I remind you, I did not vote for Obama.

Floridadynamo

“ENGLAND IS A CESSPIT” WHAT HAS THAT TO DO WITH RADICAL ISLAM?

In the January 31 issue of THE DAILY BEAST there is an interview by Tunku Varadarajan (TV) of the Nigerian Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka (WS), concerning the murderous situation occurring between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria.

In this interview TV quotes WS as saying “England is a cesspit.”

I have to admit Soyinka’s language is more colorful than that which I use in describing that island nation.

Furthermore, we come by our similar conclusions for different reasons.
I, because of the inherent and not too subtle antisemitism suffusing British/English foreign policy towards Israel and which animates Britain’s academicians and political left: and he, because “England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims.”

Admittedly, it is gratifying to have one’s political assessment validated by such an eminent scholar.

However, I find that I have to diverge from his some of his thinking.

WS claims: “Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence.  And yet England allows it. Remember, that country was the breeding ground for communism, too. Karl Marx did all his work in libraries there.”

As much as I empathize with his frustration and anger, I find his obvious implication for curbing freedom of speech to be very dangerous.  All the old arguments for freedom of speech now come to the fore – Who determines what is or isn’t worthy of censorship at any given time?  How is this determination to be made?  How does one avoid arbitrariness?  How do I know that my speech may one day be declared, arbitrarily or not, worthy of censorship?  Etc.  In a free and open society, free speech means that all citizens – and non-citizens (the aliens amongst them) – must tolerate the irrational and hateful speech of others, irrespective of how distasteful the thoughts expressed may be.  Citizens do not have to respect what is being said, they must respect and defend the right of others to utter the nonsense they do.

I am not sure that I completely accept his statement “…none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence.”  Christianity has been preaching and practicing apocalyptic violence against Jews for almost 2000 years and, with the exception of Pope John XXIII, there doesn’t seem to be any abatement.  Apocalyptic thinking is a fundamental aspect of Christianity (Book of John).

Finally I tend to disagree with his assessment about radical Islam coming to the US.  When asked by TV: “Will radical Islam take root in the United States, as it has elsewhere in the West?”  WS was quoted as saying: “I doubt you can have the kind of indoctrination schools in America as you do in the U.K.  Besides, there’s a large body of American Muslims in the U.S.—the Nation of Islam—which has created a kind of mainstream Muslim institution. The Muslims there are open Muslims, whereas in Europe they tend to go into ghetto schools. The Nation of Islam provides an antidote in the United States to fundamentalist Islam—which is why individuals from America have to go abroad to find radical teachings.”

From all that I have read radical Islam is being taught in madrasas in the USA.  Where would the ideas come from for Americans to go abroad to “find radical teachings” if they have not already been turned on to radicalism?  Going abroad is only a means of finalizing their radical learning – similar to getting an advanced degree.

Nation of Islam does not provide an antidote to radical Islam, it provides a cover under which it can thrive.  Yes, based on available evidence, I have concluded that not only can radical Islam come to the US, it is already here.

Those out to destroy a society can always find a means of using society’s laws against itself.  Let us not forget that Hitler assumed power in Germany legally.  Hugo Chavez assumed power in Venezuela legally.  Once power is assumed by such radical elements, it is too late to do anything about it legally.

Short of WS’ recommendation: “We should assemble all those who are pure and cannot abide other faiths, put them all in rockets, and fire them into space” the only rational means of protecting society is through education.  Does the only alternative become armed insurrection?

Education will be the topic for another day.

Floridadynamo