Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood terrorist
It can by now come as no surprise that the Fort Hood massacre yielded an instant flow of exculpatory media meditations on the stresses that must have weighed on the killer who mowed down 13 Americans and wounded 29 others. Still, the intense drive to wrap this clear case in a fog of mystery is eminently worthy of notice.
The tide of pronouncements and ruminations pointing to every cause for this event other than the one obvious to everyone in the rational world continues apace. Commentators, reporters, psychologists and, indeed, army spokesmen continue to warn portentously, "We don't yet know the motive for the shootings."
What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.
What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic.
One of the first outbreaks of these fevers, the night of the shootings, featured television's star psychologist, Dr. Phil, who was outraged when fellow panelist and former JAG officer Tom Kenniff observed that he had been listening to a lot of psychobabble and evasions about Maj. Hasan's motives.
A shocked Dr. Phil, appalled that the guest had publicly mentioned Maj. Hasan's Islamic identity, went on to present what was, in essence, the case for Maj. Hasan as victim. Victim of deployment, of the Army, of the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known. Unlike, can he have meant, the kind endured by those lucky Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima, say, or the Ardennes?
Comment: Read it all!
America seems doomed as a society and a culture and certain for a fall when we don't have enough courage to use the word "evil" anymore. Psychology and political correctness have totally overtaken our culture and are contributing to the downfall. People can swear and be profusely profane and vulgar and vile and it's hardly noticed, but just mention "the N word" and all of a sudden it's as if you're Hitler. Funny how "the N word" is used profusely in black entertainment and it's ok. By the way, I'm certainly not a racist by any means and don't condone uncouth or unkind or redneck language! That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that we as a culture are headed for a downfall when we call a murderer a victim and don't dare call him "evil" because that is so last century and prudish. We come up with all sorts of psychological excuses. By comparison, someone can casually say "the n word" in passing and they are actually deemed evil in this case and more dangerous than a murderer. Or a person can kindly talk about homosexuality and ponder whether or not it's really the best way to live one's life. This person having the audacity not to blindly accept without question the homosexual agenda and to think for themself would be deemed more dangerous by many in society than a murderer. These are odd days.
ReplyDelete