Norway tragedy solidifies terrorist v. extremist moniker

By any definition, the searing tragedy inflicted on Norway and its citizens was the work of terrorism and a sadistic terrorist.  Anders Breivik instilled fear through death and destruction in order to effectuate policy change.  Much like Timothy McVeigh, however, the word terrorist will slip off Breivik like so much water off a duck's back.  Change only Breivik's nation of origin to any Muslim nation (whether secular or not) and he's a terrorist.  Why is this important?  Terrorists are usually depicted as mindless mass murderers whose only agenda is to destroy anything and anyone who does not share their strict, barbaric, brand of Islam.  Their real motives are never investigated by the popular media, it is never suggested that they may suffer from deep mental or emotional instability, and the only people who would sympathize with them are automatically branded terrorists regardless of the fact that they have never harmed a soul in the name of their belief system.  I do not mean to endorse any terrorist's actions or motives, but be sure that labels matter.  Breivik will be referred to as an extremist (like McVeigh before him) or a "Christian fundamentalist".  As an aside, some day someone will have to explain to me what is "fundamental", in Christianity, about death and destruction.  These monikers suggests that his views are valid, legitimate, and shared by others who simply have greater control over their impulses; or who share his views, but to a lesser degree of extremity.  In other words, being labeled an extremist (or a fundamentalist) means people can share the extremist's views without being labeled extremists themselves; and they can continue to call themselves a "fundamentalist" without the stigma. The only real difference between Breivik, McVeigh, and Omar Saeed Sheikh (remember our beloved Danny Pearl) however, is their nationality.

  
Additionally, no one should be surprised when pundits (and media outletless babblers) refuse to vilify all white men for Breivik's actions (and I say this as a rather WASPY looking white man), while continuing to vilify all Muslims for Muhammad Atta's actions.  Check out this article for a review of the immediate vilification.  Both men were monstrous, both meant simply to silence those they dubbed as enemies with murder, and both valued their own messages more than they valued human life.  

Slowly developing disasters result in only a trickle of aid

It's not as if Somalia needed another tragedy to wrack its already tortured populace.  War (between Somalis and between Somalis and foreigners), strife (read al-Shabab), and civil unrest (read al-Shabab) already punish Somalis for...well being Somali.  Drought and famine now flood the basement of the world.   Unlike swift tragedies though--earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis--trickling food and water brings only a trickle of aid.  It's not that the Somalis are undeserving, but the cause of their plight fails to tug at the wallets of the rest of the world. 

Is Pakistan going to be in the cross-hairs?

Don't expect the U.S. to launch a war against Pakistan any time soon (as much as India would enjoy that).  Keep in mind, however, that terrorists freely move back and forth between Pakistan and Afghanistan, madrassas continue to sprout up along the Pak-Afghan border indoctrinating future militants, and the Pakistani government is obviously uninterested in curbing (or unable to curb) a burgeoning militancy.  Pakistan's semi-legitimate government, nuclear capability, geographic position next to an American ally, and readily available training ground (Afghanistan) make Pakistan the most secure terrorist save-haven on earth.  Not now, and not next year, but some day, an American force will strike the Pakistani regime, instead of just those it harbors.  This WSJ article may be a forecast of more immediate measures to come.

Climate change: the real human factor

While the causes of climate change (nature vs. nurture run amok) will be forever debated, there is an undeniable human factor, which, not surprisingly, makes things worse.  Not only will human food consumption increase (this alone is not really such a bad thing), but our tastes for the foods most damaging to produce will increase exponentially.  A recent Al Jazeera report quoted William Ryerson (president of the Population Institute) as saying "[as] the demand for more meat instead of grain [increases] as incomes rise, China is projected to need to import 240 million tons of food annually by the year 2030".  Land cultivated for meat is land lost for the cultivation of anything otherwise sustainable, and cattle and pigs have a tendency to release enormous amounts of methane and carbon into the atmosphere.  Is the rancorous debate about the causes of global warming as important as the (currently much quieter) debate about our overall impact on the globe as it relates to its dynamic meteorology?

Hotel maid topples curator of world economy

As a former government prosecutor, I know the power of that office all too well.  Dominique Strauss-Kahn is the latest in a short, but infamous list, of lime-light officials to fall peril to the state's truly most powerful elected official (the district attorney).    Built on little more than an elaborate story, the case against Strauss-Kahn is rapidly evaporating and it is likely that the next indictment in this case will be against the "victim" herself.  A recent Jerusalem Post article details the slow evaporation.  While I do not want to draw judgment too quickly, this case has the whiff of Duke lacrosse player aroma.  It is for this that a prosecutor's duty is to seek justice and not pursue meritless cases.  If he could, Ted Stevens would probably rush to Strauss-Kahn's side.  


A current NYT op-ed piece (Joe Nocera--NYT 7/5/11) inspired me to update this posing.  Despite the quickly deteriorating foundation for his case, D.A. Vance deserves kudos for investigating his witness, and being open about the case's problems.