Meet Derek Reeve, an elected representative of Orange County city council in California. That state is known for doing some wacky things, so Reeve’s claim to fame is consistent with his state’s reputation.
Reeve has decided to test the waters of free speech in America by naming his dog after the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, even going so far as to say his dog is a ‘”bitch” for his other two dogs. Reeve is perfectly within his rights to do so, but that he should hoist himself on his petard when there are far more pressing things which need to be publicly addressed shows the immaturity and sophistry of this elected official not to mention the people who elected him. His city’s Muslim population is ranked 5th among the 10 religious affiliations found here, which means Reeve should probably be out of a job when he’s next up for re-election in 2014. However, that potentiality won’t stop him from seeking the notoriety he wants with such racist behavior. He has already twitted about his name appearing on that equally incendiary Bill O’Reilly of dirty talk and lootfah fame, and you can be sure he’s going to make the circuit of right wing talk radio and television who will want to make a martyr out of him. CAIR, the Islamic advocacy group has already called on him to “apologize” for his remarks……..a really inappropriate response to Reeve in this writer’s opinion, and that will only further to inflame him and his supporters to greater heights of idiocy and racism.
The point is however that Reeve wants to inflame public opinion, and especially that of Muslims worldwide in order to point to them as the wrong kind of element for America which needs somehow to be censored or worse. Would that CAIR had gone on record by saying they regret Reeve’s inflammatory application of “free speech”, but supported his right to it, this would have been a non issue and Reeve would have returned to the obscurity which probably drove him to the heights of such idiocy. In a multi-cultural society like America purposely inflaming passions by abusing the religious symbols of any member is not only stupid but counter productive to good citizenship, while yes still being legal. Generally for such people who are so inclined we isolate them mentally and socially from having any real impact on the public discourse, while keeping an “eye” on them. Today’s America, however, revels in the ‘in your face’ arrogance which is so typical of politicians today and so such due diligence will probably not be seen, especially when it comes to people who are different than the likes of Reeve and O’Reilly. Look to Reeve to get a lot of play from the haters and race baiters, and even from Muslims. It’s too bad people keep falling into these traps.
Tony Bennett, a free and law abiding citizen of the United States and a veteran of World War II, was thrust into the public eye after making these comments
“But who are the terrorists? Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don’t make a right. They flew the plane in, but we caused it. Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop.”
The malestorm that ensued caused Bennett to make an apology, which he should not have done, but one can see why he did it. The above comments were made on Howard Stern’s show, the shock jock of American airwaves, when Bennett appeared there to promote his recently released album and upcoming tour. Sensing a reaction reminiscent of what happened to the Dixie Chicks at the start of Bush’s illegal war in Iraq Bennett issued his retraction.
What Bennett was talking about however is blowback, and the idea that America bears some responsibility for the international community’s opinion of us is nothing new. In fact the term has been in widespread use within government circles for at least the last 25 years, or maybe even longer. Ron Paul has brought the word and the concept to the forefront during his two presidential election campaigns and even before seeking that office. Here is the definition of blowback
Blowback is the espionage term for the violent, unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.
and this is exactly what Bennett was talking about. Notice in the definition that in order for the aggressor government to get the most out of blowback…….casus belli, the population must remain ignorant or rather uninformed about the clandestine operations being done in their name by their imperial government, which is why Bennett’s remarks had to come under immediate scathing, scurrilous attack. Too many people are saying the same thing as Bennett and that makes it increasingly difficult for escape the judicial remedies necessary to correct this should the ground swell continue. It didn’t help Bennett’s cause any that a tour and a new album have been released or are imminent. The attribution of his remarks with the attending negative publicity would spell doom for a man used to the adulation and depending on it for a livelihood. The ‘powers that be’ know that, which is why they jumped on him so quickly. Bennett’s original comments however were right on the mark….sort of, if you believe bin laden was responsible for 911. Here’s is another view, however
Vodpod videos no longer available.