Monday, November 9, 2009

Assigning Motive is a Subjective Game

The other day President Obama stated, "We cannot fully Know what led Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to kill 13 people and wound 38 others at Fort Hood Texas Thursday." We can't? Well, it seems pretty clear to most Americans exactly what led this Islamic Major to do exactly what he did. Apparently he considered the U.S. armed forces, enemies of Islam. He posted on the internet that Muslim suicide bombings were justified. Those two facts alone should give every common sense American reason to believe this was without a doubt a terrorist act, with Islamic extremist implications. But maybe I'm wrong.

In July our articulate and oh so smart president seemed perfectly capable of assigning motive in the arrest of his friend Henry Louis Gates by a White Cambridge police officer, even though he admitted he didn't know all the facts. Remember he said, that he didn't know what part race had to play in the arrest, implying that it played some part, and stated the Cambridge police acted stupidly. And, if he'd taken the time to investigate he'd have learned that sergeant Crowley was an exemplary officer, who actual had taught race sensitivity training, and given CPR to a black athlete at a Boston Celtics game. He then went on to muse about the history of black persecution by White America.

I'm confused why he didn't mention the history of Islamic extremism when commenting about the Fort Hood incident, and the cowardly acts of suicide bombing and murder of innocents all around the world. Seems that would be just as relevant if not more so, than the White racism he condemned, without knowing the facts, in the Gates affair. But, what do I know? He's the president, and is obviously more capable of assuming motive, than I. Hmmm.

I'm confused about another thing, which I'm sure can be attributed to my lack of knowledge and understanding, that our president most assuredly has. Why does his administration and cronies want to take terrorism or terrorist acts out of our lexicon, and define an act of terrorism as a man-caused disaster? But, at the same time his friends and allies assigned racism as the motive for critics of his domestic agenda. He must be really intelligent to make such a distinction. This obviously is far above my pay grade. Gee, I heard that phrase somewhere before.

I just had an epiphany. I think it was those twenty years of sitting in front of the most eloquent Rev Wright that taught him how to assign motive and blame about race relations. After all he said he would be the post racial president. I'm sure his relationship with ACORN, and his redistribution policies have a lot to do with correcting those injustices. And, I'm sure it was those years at Harvard and Yale Law that gave him the understanding about Islamic extremist and their plight. How they've been persecuted by Jews and the West for years. That's probably why he's doing everything to not offend or agitate them in any way. That must be why he's dictating to that pesky Israel, to stop their settlements, and watch their step when dealing with these downtrodden, and every right to be angry, makers of man-caused disasters.

I'm so glad we elected a president who has the intellect and wisdom to assign or not assign motives in all the important incidents of the day. I'm sure his efforts won't exacerbate racism, or embolden makers of man-caused disasters to make more man-caused disasters. He's too smart to let that happen, and most Americans have too much COMMON, and that's the problem, it's COMMON sense, not Rev. Wright and elite Ivy League educated sense, to think like his highly evolved and superior mind does. All hail!


No comments:

Post a Comment