Dear Hannity...Love Deepak

Sean Hannity, never one to twist a situation to his advantage while ripping his opponent with false characterizations, did exactly that to the ever spiritual Deepak Chopra last week. It was about the Mumbai attacks and from Deepak's message of love, Hannity misconstrued it as "blaming America." So Deepak did the brave thing and responded on his own show and over at the Huffington Post.

From The Huffington Post:

Dear Sean,

I saw a report about last night's show that quotes you as follows:

"Hannity continued by saying, "We had Deepak Chopra on last night and he's blaming America! ...He was blaming America for the attacks in Mumbai and I challenged him on it and I'm like, 'Wait a minute. You've done so well in America. Why are you blaming us?' We protect 100% of the world's population. We're 4% of it."

I am really disappointed in you. Do you not remember your other guest when I was on, former Defense Secretary Bill Cohen? He made the same point I did about America's policy toward the jihadists: "Are we creating more terrorists than killing them?" Ironically, this question is attributed to Donald Rumsfeld.

It really doesn't matter to me personally whether you agree with me or not. Leaving our debate aside, your habit of taking statements out of context and playing the blaming game is sad. You have a powerful platform that influences many people. Why do you use your influence to monger fear, militancy, divisiveness, and jingoism?

I was hoping to come back on your show and have a reflective, intelligent dialogue, but perhaps the attack mode is the only way you know to make a living. The best excuse for your dishonest accusations against me is that you don't believe what you're saying. The far right has deflated, so you are there to pump it up with hot air. If you stop blowing, you'll be out of a job. I empathize.

Love,
Deepak

All Sean really knows is to monger fear, militancy, divisiveness, and jingoism. He prefers hate to love, war to peace, destruction to reconstruction, disease to cures and on and on. I am really proud to see Colmes leave his show finally. He must have had enough after twelve years of being continually bashed by Sean and liberals for giving Hannity an illusion of balance on his show.

I agree with Deepak one hundred percent on his analysis of Mr. Hannity. He is a sad sight and I....well, I try to empathize. I'd much rather just see him off the air.

A Little Common Sense On Going To War Against Terror

In the wake of the Mumbai attacks, a natural human emotion is to want revenge for the deaths caused by the terrorists. India has talked about going after Pakistan and it scares the shit out of many because both have nuclear arms. At the very least, India will be going to fight the war on terror just as we began after September 11th. The only problem, as Rosa Brooks points out, "Terror is an emotion, and terrorism is a tactic." So what we need is a little briefing on history and a lot of restraint via common sense before we get our war on again.

From The LA Times:

Terrorism is nearly as old as humanity itself. In the 1st century AD, the Zealots of Judea began a series of covert killings of Roman occupiers and Jewish collaborators. The word "assassin" is thought to derive from "Hashshashin," the name of a Shiite sect active during the Middle Ages whose members donned disguises to kill their victims in public places. The term "thug" is said to come from India -- from the 17th to 19th centuries, a cult engaged in "thuggee," the mass strangulation of travelers in caravans. And like modern terrorists of all ideological stripes, these ancient Zealots, assassins and thugs succeeded in part by sowing outsized fear.

Mumbai should remind us -- again -- of the folly of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Terror is an emotion, and terrorism is a tactic. You can't make "war" against it. Even if meant as mere metaphor, "the war on terror" foolishly enhanced the terrorist's status as prime boogeyman, arguably increasing the psychological effectiveness of terrorist tactics. Worse, it effectively lumped together many different organizations motivated by many different grievances -- a surefire route to strategic error.

Like crime, terrorism will always be with us, and terrorist attacks will increase as long as we succumb to the panic they're intended to inspire. But if we resist the temptation to lash out indiscriminately, we can take sober steps to reduce terrorism through improved intelligence, carefully targeted disruptions of specific terrorist organizations and efforts to address specific grievances (such as disputes over Kashmir). With a new U.S. administration about to take office, isn't it finally time to say goodbye to the "war on terror"? After all, we already have two real wars to worry about.

You can't go to war against terror just as you can not win a war against drugs, or even poverty for that matter. "War" is such a strong word and here, it is a symbol leaders use that shows their subjects they'll be tough and fight whatever and whomever to make people feel safe. The only problem with that is we generally over-react and let bloodthirsty fools like George Bush invade Iraq. Brooks is exactly right when we need to take sober steps such as those she lists in that last paragraph.

If that new Administration really wants to reduce the chances of us feeling terrorized by the next attack (whenever that may be), then Obama's people must act rationally in their responses and long-term policy goals. Instead of warring, we need to work together as a nation and ideally as a planet to root out the causes for those that wish to terrorize others. Only then do we stand a chance of reducing our fears of another Mumbai, Madrid, London, New York, Oklahoma City and so on.

The Aftermath Of Mumbai

Sunday's political talk shows were all focused on what happened in Mumbai, who orchestrated the attacks and what to do about it: