Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, February 27, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 3

Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, February 27, 2006 at about 11pm CST
Segment 3

Two weeks ago on this program I attacked the Eagle for not posting the Danish cartoons that have been causing so many riots around the world. Marion Michael Morrison once said that if you are going to insult a man, you should do it to his face.

This weekend I modified that attack and sent it to Eagle as a guest editorial. Of course they will not print it and it would be incorrect behavior for me to expect them to do so. It is one thing for you to allow a man to insult you. It is quite another to allow him to do it on your dime. Plus you should know that the Eagle supports KEOS by printing our advertisements, so I really was biting the hand that feeds me. On the other hand, us radicals are ALWAYS biting the hand that feeds us.

Here is the guest editorial I wrote:

Very few newspapers in the United States have published the cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten. The United States newspapers make all kinds of excuses as to why they do not publish the cartoons, but it boils down to fear and self-interest.

Shakespeare wrote a play called Hamlet. The play was a dreary thing about a Danish prince who had to make a decision. A hard decision. In Hamlet Act 3, Scene 1, Hamlet says in one of the most memorable soliloquies in the English language:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.

I was struck with how much this soliloquy fits the present situation. When you strip away all the posturing by our media, the members of the media are frightened. They fear death. Just as with Hamlet, they are saying that they WILL "suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" instead of taking "up arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing... end them". Why? Because the media cannot take up arms and end the oppression of the Irreconcilables of radical Islam.

When we as a civilization gave newspapers a special place in our society, we expected them to inform us about the issues of the day. In short, we as a society have an implied contract with newspapers. Right now, the issue before us is the cartoons. By my standards, newspapers in general and the Eagle in particular have failed to live up to their implied contract with the American people.

Yet we ask too much of our newspapers. Print media is a dying industry. Towns used to have more than one newspaper. Cities, like New York used to have twenty or thirty newspapers, each with a specific audience. Nowadays newspapers are just a means of making a living. The editors have obligations to the stockholders of the newspaper to guard the lives of their employees and of the buildings where the newspaper is printed. Newspapers, like the Eagle, pay little to their employees. The Eagle has a high turnover rate. Employees of the Eagle move to other towns to get on with their careers in a dying industry. If an employee at the Eagle were offered a position in the PR department at McDonalds, why should they not take it? Surely the job would pay more and, after all, journalism is just a job nowadays. It is not a vocation. It is not a calling. It is just a method of making money. Journalism is just a method of passing the time between graduation from college... and retirement.

Just as we would never dream of asking McDonalds employees to die for the company, so we should not expect members of the Eagle staff to put their lives on the line for something as silly as freedom of the press. I mean, it's just a set of cartoons published in a little newspaper in a town in Denmark about the size of Bryan-College Station. I doubt very seriously that the Jyllands-Posten has a circulation any bigger than the Eagle. I could be mistaken, though.

Would Donnis Baggett be stupid enough to have done as Flemming Rose and tried to address the issue of self-censorship where Islam is concerned? Of course not. The Eagle has covered the Iraq War too closely. All who work at the Eagle have seen or heard what happens to members of the press who dare confront the adherents of radical Islam. We have too many of our local citizens who have been to Iraq and come back with stories of what it is like over there, fighting the jihadis. Too many of the Aggies have come back missing legs and arms. No REAL journalist would want to do that. My God, journalism is just a job. If they wanted to fight in the War on Terror, members of the Eagle staff would have signed up to go overseas and fight in the military. The very idea that the staff of the Eagle should have to confront straight on the evil that is radical Islam is just... silly.

Plus all at the Eagle know what happens to journalists who confront the bullies who dress themselves up in the clothes of Muslim victimhood. Why the Eagle could be sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for showing disrespect for Islam, if they dared confront the issue of self-censorship. If Clear Channels Communications cannot stand up to CAIR, why should the Eagle even try? I mean, the corporation who owns the Eagle would just cave at the first whiff of a lawsuit. The corporation is in it for the money, just as the employees at the Eagle are in the newspaper business for the money. Why should they put themselves in financial jeopardy just to... do much of anything? The shareholders of the corporation demand that the publisher of the Eagle optimize profits, not generate bad PR. It's just a silly idea to expect the Eagle to step up and enter this debate.

With examples like this of course only a fool would take a strong stance for freedom of the press when dealing with the Danish cartoons.

Legend says that on the night of March 5, 1836 William Travis called his troops together and gave a speech. Can you see him there in your mind? Standing tall with a torch in one hand and a sword in the other. He explained that the Mexicans had committed themselves to kill everyone in the Alamo. He drew a line in the sand at the Alamo and invited the members of his command to commit themselves to die to the last man rather than surrender to the Mexicans. It is said that all but one crossed the line. Jim Bowie had his litter taken across the line.

It is said that the Mexicans under Santa Anna were much put upon. The gringos had shown no respect to the Mexicans and Santa Anna was there to remind them that they had sworn some oaths to Mexico. The Texans were fighting to restore the Constitution of 1824. The two sides were irreconcilable.

Because the Alamo held up the advance of the Mexican army for a thirteen days, Sam Houston was able to get his troops and equipment together and fight a month later at San Jacinto. The Alamo fell on March 6, 1836. San Jacinto ended the War of Texas Independence on April 21, 1836. If Travis and the others had not died to the last man at the Alamo, the war could have gone on for years. By making a stand at the beginning of major hostilities, the Texans forestalled a long bitter war.

Today, we have entered into a war that spans thirty to fifty years. George Bush said this to the American people in his speech of September 21, 2001. Most people ignored that clear warning that the Irreconcilables of radical Islam would not be defeated quickly. Too many people in this country have deluded themselves with the idea that the Irreconcilables are fighting for a cause where they can be appeased.

Rudyard Kipling said it best in a poem called Dane-geld:

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
    To call upon a neighbour and to say:
"We invaded you last night---we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
    And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say:
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to says:

"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that plays it is lost!"

The Irreconcilables are not asking just for our money. They are asking for our freedom. They are asking that we admit that they are superior to us AND that we will adhere to their rules whether we become Muslims or not. As I said before, the Irreconcilables will not give up until all opposition is killed, converted to Islam, made second class citizens or enslaved. To believe otherwise is silliness. Pay not danegeld at all or you will rue the day you did.

I personally feel that there is a way to address the issue of the cartoons in the pages of the Eagle. I say on Sunday, March 5, 2006 that the Eagle publish the cartoons and invite debate about why Muslims are offended by these silly cartoons.

Yet there is a more important issue to be debated in this community. In the pages of the editorial page and in town meetings, we as citizens of this community should ask our Muslim neighbors whether they are Muslims first or Texans and Americans first. Some Muslims perceive that they are part of the Ummah, the community of Muslims. They do not recognize national boundaries.

America cannot afford such an attitude. We are not a nation of blood and bone. We do not have centuries of common heritage. We as a nation are founded on the ideas and ideals embodied in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If we as a nation continue to have an unassimilated minority who do not recognize that simple fact, then we cannot really trust our Muslim neighbors. If their loyalty is forever to their religion first and their country second, then there is always the chance that in a crisis they will choose their religion over this country.

The change that Islam must make is simple, yet profound. All other faiths in this country have had to make it. It is time and past time for Islam in this country to also commit to the ideal that there are as many Paths to God as there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.

I can prove this assertion quite easily with a strange question: Have you looked at the night sky?

There are as many stars in the sky as there grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. That of course means that God is kind of big. How can one book of any religion encompass the entire sky? All religions should be able to agree that God wrote the sky, created the heavens and the earth and all the stars in the sky. If God is that big, how can you possibly believe that one book or a set of books can match the sky in size and complexity? When I look at the night sky, I have to ask myself whether the God cares which Path to God a mortal takes. Somewhere along the line, someone has mistaken the goal of reaching God for the Path to reaching God. Is the Path so important that the goal should be ignored? What is more, why is it necessary to destroy all the other Paths to God?

I say that those who walk the Path of Islam to God are deserving of respect, because they have Chosen to walk a hard Path. I am just unwilling to allow the members of Islam to dictate the Path I Choose to reach God. I am also unwilling to allow the members of Islam to dictate the direction of the Path I Choose to reach God. If the members of Islam in this community cannot accept that they have no right to dictate which Path to God is best, then they should leave this country and find one where members of that polity believe the assertion that Muslims have a right to dictate how non-Muslims act.

I am not saying "My Country, Love It or Leave It". I am simply stating as fact that the United States cannot exist with an established religion. In addition, the United States cannot exist with a court system for non-Muslims and a Sharia court system for Muslims. It cannot be done. Any who believe that our country can survive under such a regime are insane or... Irreconcilables.

I have decided that too many people in this community are acting like irresolute Hamlets and not enough people are acting like the people embodied in the poem by Rudyard Kipling. The ghost of William Travis has called to me across the gulf of time and I will step across the line. I will debate the issue with you in the pages of the Eagle editorial pages or in public meetings.

I would close by saying that the ghost of William Barret Travis sends his regards and asks politely that you volunteer to step across the line. I cannot get more polite than that.

And then at the end, I gave my name, email address and P.O. Box.

I must admit that I am very proud of that editorial. I have always found this generation of newspaper people to be very self righteous. The thinking in the media most particularly newspapers is that they ARE part of a higher calling. Yet, the newspapers are now part of the corporate world of stockholders and risk averse behavior. Throwing in McDonalds was a particularly nasty insult, because so many on the Left feel that working at McDonalds is the lowest of low job even in their PR department. Sometimes my humor gets away with me.

What I wanted to accomplish with that editorial was to call the Muslims of this community to debate their place IN this community. I had envisioned getting some leader or spokesman from the local Muslim community to come here to KEOS and have an interview and then a debate. The problem I am having is that the concept of debate has been degraded. Debate is NOT where the participants try to convince each other of the rectitude of their position. No, debate is where the opposing sides state their positions and the audience makes up its mind. I want a situation where I interview the guy, debate him, put a transcript of the debate out on my blog, and THEN have questions for both sides from the audience via the blog. The answers to the questions would be very interesting.

If you start with the belief that there is a God, then I really think you should memorize that question: Have you looked at the night sky? Yeah, that allows you to puncture the pontificating of anyone who says that their religion is the One True Path. There can be no One True Path to God. It's a silly idea. There can be a True Path for you, but what is the One True Path for you, may NOT be the One True Path for someone else. For a preacher or imam, to say that one size fits all is acceptable to me. What I have problems with is to actually use force to make people walk that One True Path. People must volunteer to walk a Path to God. If we are to have Free Will, then it is necessary for all of us to respect other people's choices up to a point.

How to determine when the other guy's choice of Path is an affront to civilized behavior is kind of hard. Up until the Christian era, human sacrifice was common throughout the world. People used to eat other people as part of religious ceremonies.

Some of the rites in some of the sects of Islam are very difficult for us to swallow. In Saudi Arabia, they beheading people for switching from Islam to another religion. During some of the religious ceremonies in Iraq and Iran, people strike their backs with specialized blades in order to bleed. Throughout the Muslim world they chop the hand off of thieves. Wait, you did know that church and state are one in Islam, so the courts are done by the clergy. This means that all the laws of Sharia are religious laws and may not be questioned... And that in itself is very strange to us. The only problem I have with any of these religious practices is when someone is required to be a part of them under duress.

If the Eagle will not publish my editorial, then I shall have to find some other way to get this out in the open. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Until the Muslims in this community and all across America show some signs that they do not agree with the Irreconcilables, then Muslims in this country will have to be viewed with suspicion. The way insurgents work is to get help from locals. If the insurgents who infiltrate into this country cannot find locals to house and support them, then they cannot do acts of terrorism easily.

It all boils down to one thing. Too many of our media are risk averse. We are on the front lines in this war. If you do not understand that, then you are deluded. The media in this country looks at the death and destruction over seas and just does not want to be responsible for it. The problem is that we cannot avoid that destruction. The Irreconcilables really and truly are not willing to pack it in. They will be fighting us for the next 30-50 years. Our media can support our cause or not.

That is what I really want to do. Whether I can get anyone to listen to me, I do not know. After all, I am but a voice from the velvet black calling to you across the gulf of our mutual incomprehension.