The incredible gall of James Zumwalt's op-ed contribution in today's New York Times strains the limits of shamelessness. He claims that six Muslim imams who were singled out by "concerned passengers" (ostensibly because they looked "suspicious," i.e. Muslim) are intimidating good, honest, terrorist-fearing 'mericans by bringing suit against both the airline and the passengers who were clearly spooked by seeing "ragheads" onboard their plane. This is classic blame-the-victim rhetoric in which obviously the imams were asking for it! Far be it from to defend any religious leaders on grounds that they are "holy" men—but, come on! Really?
Witnesses described conduct that suggested something ominous might in fact be in the offing. The imams, the passengers reported, prayed loudly in the open terminal before boarding, sat in different seats on the plane from those assigned, positioned themselves near exits, asked for unneeded seatbelt extensions (which they then placed under their seats) and, most disturbingly, made anti-American comments.
This is all hearsay, but let's go through the list, anyway:
- They prayed loudly? Must be terrorists.
- They sat in different seats on the plane than those assigned? Only terrorists make mistakes when boarding planes. Or perhaps only terrorists prefer the better seat that seems to be unoccupied.
- They positioned themselves near exits? Only terrorists prefer the roomiest seats on a plane. (See tip 2 in that link.)
- They asked for "unneeded" seatbelt extensions? I got nothing for this one. Perhaps we could ask them why they needed these. "Unneeded" is a little presumptuous: I'm pretty sure Mr. Zumwalt wasn't there to confirm that they did not, indeed, need the extensions. Besides, what can you possibly do with seatbelt extensions that you can't do with a common belt, anyway?
- They made anti-American comments? Never mind, that's the clincher. If you don't like everything 'merica does, you can just get out! We'll bring democracy to your country soon enough anyway.
Let's be reasonable. Suppose there were terrorists on a flight and they planned to hijack the plane or crash it into something.
Would they dress up as Muslim clergy and behave in an attention-grabbing way? Or maybe our citizen-heroes just saw past their clever disguises and their subtle terrorist tactics. With a nation full of Jack Bauers, I think we can all rest easy and fly the safe blue skies.
Labels: 'merica, airlines, sham, terrorism
Regarding this statutory rape case in Britain, involving a 20-year-old man who had sex with a 10-year-old victim, Jessica from Feministing is up in arms that the defendant is getting off without any jail time. The circumstances of the case seem to be that the girl looks over the age of consent, asked to have sex, and was outside a pub at the time. The prosecutor in the case sympathizes with the defendant's claim that he honestly believed the victim was old enough to consent. But apparently intent is not a factor in Jessica Valenti's calculus.
No prosecutor ever wants to be in a position that makes it appear that he condones sex between an adult and a 10-year-old. The judge in this case characterizes the situation as "wholly exceptional" which makes me think that perhaps this particular 10-year-old actually does reasonably appear to be old enough to consent to sex (this being a statutory case and not an aggravated rape)—especially given the setting of the encounter. Otherwise, it seems completely unbelievable to me that any judge or prosecutor in Britain would be willing to put his professional and public reputation on the line in favor of somebody who had sex with a ten-year-old.
The only way, it seems, that the defendant could have avoided this situation is if he'd asked the victim for identifying documents, I suppose. In America, even that would not have been enough as we have strict liability laws that define sex with a minor as statutory rape even if you meet the minor in a bar (where everybody is presumably over 21) and you check for ID (which is just an absurd proposition) and the ID happens to be fake.
Labels: 'merica, britain, law, rape
Andrew Sullivan says Britain is humiliated, Amos at Kishkushim says Iran is humiliated, The Independent covers the spin. But in the end, I think I like Terry Jones' take the best.
Labels: britain, diplomacy, iran, politics, war
In America, we have this way of overlooking the patently obvious. What is the American public's number one concern these days? Security. More specifically, terrorism. And what country is the bogeyman du jour? Iran. But let's just consider that perception:
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with 9/11? No.
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with the Madrid attacks? No.
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with the London attacks? No.
- Did the Iranians have anything to do with the Bali attacks? No.
- Where did those attackers come from? Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt—basically Arab countries and Pakistan.
- Were any of those attackers Iranian? No.
-
Do Iranians have any reason to fear us? Consider this map:
Notice those two bright red American-invaded countries on either side of Iran. Then remember all that "axis of evil" talk. Now think back to who has once already deposed Iran's democratically elected prime minister in favor of an autocratic king who ruled until he was overthrown during the revolution of 1979 (hint:
it was us), who it was that armed Iraq in the first place (hint:
it was us), and who it was that encouraged and directly supported Saddam Hussein's war on Iran (hint:
it was us). Maybe
they're afraid of
us. And maybe they should be. Are they seeking nuclear weapons? Probably. They probably look over at their neighbor Pakistan, who has done
much more to harm American interests and realize that Pakistan is an American "ally" because it's got the bomb.
Labels: 'merica, history, iran, iraq, sham, war
