Your one stop pundit shop.
Eugene Robinson on the shooting at Fort Hood:
Any soldier who seemed as if he might be falling apart -- and it seems that Hasan gave a lot of people that impression -- should have been given more scrutiny. In Hasan's case, a closer look would have revealed his growing religiosity and his feeling that his faith was under assault. That Hasan had worshiped at a Virginia mosque whose spiritual leader was a radical named Anwar al-Aulaqi might also have come to light. The Post reported Monday that Aulaqi, who now lives in Yemen, has posted a message on his Web site calling Hasan a "hero" for what he allegedly did at Fort Hood.
Had authorities learned in advance of any link between Hasan and radical Islam -- as opposed to the mainstream Islam practiced by more than a billion people worldwide -- they could have moved immediately to ensure that Hasan could not hurt others or himself. That wouldn't have been an act of bigotry, it would have been an act of prudence, even compassion.
How is the Pentagon supposed to tell the difference between reasonable caution and blatant discrimination? There are thousands of Muslims in uniform, serving their country at home and abroad. Ask them.
Naseem Rakha on the upcoming execution of "Beltway sniper" John Allen Muhammad and whether his death will provide closure to the families of his victims.
Richard Cohen proves the old adage that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while:
There are many good reasons to put as much as we can in Afghanistan. But America has been at war there since 2001, at war in Iraq since 2003, and like Britain between the world wars, is out of both treasure and patience. Leave Afghanistan to the drones and the Special Forces. It's no way to win, but it's a good way not to lose.
William McGurn just loves Bart Stupak.
Dorothy Rabinowitz joins the large body of conservatives who are shamelessly politicizing the murderous rampage at Fort Hood.
Bob Herbert agrees that reforming health care is important, but:
... in terms of pressing national priorities, the most important are the need to find solutions to a catastrophic employment environment that is devastating American families and to end the folly of an 8-year-old war that is both extremely debilitating and ultimately unwinnable.
Cal Thomas seems to finds a freakish bright side in his twisted little brain to the shooting at Fort Hood:
Suddenly, the issue of gays in the military doesn't seem as important as jihadists in the military.
Frank Gaffney somehow manages to connect the shooting at Fort Hood to Congress' low approval ratings.
Steve Almond on the Fairness Doctrine:
The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is subject their invective to a real-time reality check.
Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio’s business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety - and the seductive rage - that is the central appeal of all demagogues.
Would talk radio’s bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there’s nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom.
The real shock is that journalists haven’t supported the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of “mainstream media’’ outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, “Does this story serve the public good?’’ they ask, “Will it get ratings?’’
This is how fake controversies (death panels, the birther movement, etc.) have pushed aside real issues, such as how to fix health care, or address climate change. It’s quite a racket. Talk radio hosts foment ignorant rage, then their “mainstream’’ brethren cover this ignorant rage as news.
