Hitler, Halal, and Hubris: The Extreme Ignorance Involved in Analyzing Islamic Terrorism

Tags

000 lashes, 1000 lashes, adultery, afghanistan, africa, Al Qaeda, America, analysis, anthropology, AQAP, Australia, authoritarian, authoritarian regimes, authoritarianism, Balkans, behead, beheading, Bill of Rights, blogger, blogging, Bobby Jindal, Boko Haram, Canada, cartoon, cartooning, cartoons, censorship, Charlie Hebdo, Charlie Hebdo magazine, china, chocolate, chocolate bar, Christanity, Christian, Christians, cnn, coward, cowards, crime punishment, democracy, democratic, disenfranchisement, dissemination, email, Emanuel Tanay, equality, execution, fairness, family, First Amendment, France, free press, free speech, freedom, Germany, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Jindal, halal, hible, historical, history, Hitler, hoax, honor killing, hubris, human rights, idea, ideas, ideology, ignorance, iran, iraq, ISIS, Islam, Japan, Jewish, Jews, Jindal, Judaism, justice, knowledge, lashing, lashings, lasjes, law, Lithuania, Lithuanian, maim, maiming, marginalization, media, Mohammed, murder, Muslim, Muslims, Nazi, Nazis, Nazism, New Testament, news, news outlets, newspaper, newspapers, Nigeria, no go zones, Old Testament, opinion, othering, Pakistan, Paris attacks, Paris terrorist attacks, political, politics, Prophet, protest, protesting, protests, psychology, qu'ran, rape, religion, rwanda, safety, Saudi Arabia, security, sharia, sharia law, sociology, stoning, Syria, terrorism, terrorists, the Balkans, the United Kingdom, torture, U.K., U.S., U.S.A., UK, United Kingdom, united states, United States of America, US, USA, violence, wan, war, war zone, whipping, women, women's rights, World War 2, World War II, World War Two, WW2, WWII

I received an email from a family member entitled “A German’s View on Islam”. It’s a hoax email, but I didn’t know that until I did further research. If anyone is interested in the contents of the email that was sent to me, those contents can be found here:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/Tanay-Merek-German-Islam.htm#.VL_rtIo8KnM

I put a lot of thought into the response I emailed to my family members, however, and thought I should post my thoughts here because the topic and subsequent discussions still seem relevant.

This is a slightly edited version of the email response I sent to my family members:

I, too, was disappointed when I read this email. I wouldn’t say I was “shocked” because I’ve heard a lot of this before. The “no go zones” stirred up a lot of controversy when Bobby Jindal talked about them, and then defended his statements on CNN. At the risk of getting into an all-out war with everyone, I’d like to share my thoughts. Please remain civil. Attacking each other is not going to help anything.

I read this a few minutes after it was sent out, and had an immediate reaction, but I was watching the State of the Union address, so I thought I’d wait to respond. Then I thought it might be best not to respond, but since I see others have already done so, I will.

I was immediately intrigued by a sociological examination of current Muslim terrorism. (To be clear, I’m in no way saying all Muslims are terrorists or that we should “kill” Muslims–or terrorists. Extrajudicial killing, though usually done for practical purposes, adds to the problem.) My first thought was that the timeline must be off. An aristocrat pre-Nazi power? The fact that this person would still be alive and writing articles is not impossible, but surprising. I understood this man as saying he was a well-established businessman by the 1930s. I would think this would make him at least 100 years old today. I didn’t do the research Robin did, so I can’t tell you who Emmanuel Tanya [as it appeared in the email–his real name was Emanuel Tanay] is, or who this story/email originates from.

[I later did do the research.]

I have no reason to doubt the idea that many Germans rallied behind a renewed German nationalism or that much of the population didn’t follow as close attention to politics as it should have. My issue comes with comparison of Nazi Germany to not only today’s situation of global terrorism, but to situations unrelated to either in recent history. It’s very sexy to compare any situation to Nazism. Heads of majority Muslim countries that support terrorist organizations within their own borders (and without) are not Hitler, just as terrorist cells are not comparable to the early Nazi party. I think it does a tremendous disservice to all of the victims of extreme violence, tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, and genocide to lump them all together. There are unique causes and conditions that occurred in Rwanda, the Balkans, China, Japan, etc. The barest of similarities can be made with the rise of Nazism and the subsequent genocide that occurred in Germany. Yes, ethnic and religious hatreds exist around the world, unfathomable acts of barbarism are practiced in an effort to gain and maintain power, and runaway ideology used as a justification for almost anything did not end in Germany in 1945. If we conflate every conflict, we misunderstand history and have even less chance of effectively mitigating the worst situations. It is pure ignorance to say ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or any large terrorist organization of the moment is tantamount to the Nazi party. I’m not trying to diminish their threat or barbarism, but there are so many differences that I don’t think it’s a useful or proper comparison.

That those who scream the loudest or instill the most fear often get the most attention is not something I will dispute. Have terrorists overwhelmed the “silent majority”? I would say this is not true in every case, but yes, they pose significant threats to the very lives of those who live near (or more unfortunately, under) them. Ask anyone who has escaped from ISIS-controlled territory. The idea that those around them, the “moderate Muslims”, or, in this case, “peace-loving Muslims” should call out the poisonous apples in their ranks is an attractive one. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if everyone said “not in my name” to the point that their civil views drowned out the hatred and suicide bombings and maiming and beheading and stoning executed by the extremists? 1. Try doing this in a country where blogging your dissent can get you 1,000 lashes. (This happens in Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, that practices its own form of extremism.) The new head of “Charlie Hebdo” was asked how he felt about the cartoons of Mohammed drawn by his magazine staff not being shown in much of Western media. He said that he very much understood the threat posed by those living under authoritarian regimes and in places where free speech is hindered and “insulting the Prophet” can result in death. He did not encourage people to “stand up” in the face of such retribution. He did say, however, that he believed those who live in so-called “democratic” countries with stronger free speech protections were cowards for not showing the cartoons. I mention this because whatever your view on this, the point I’m making is that we tend to assume it’s just as easy for people around the world to openly “stand up for what is right”. It’s not. Perhaps the author is arguing that those who were silent let things get to this point. I’m not sure that’s entirely fair either. 2. It’s a nice idea, but will the terrorists just decide that violent jihad is no longer a good idea because most people wag their fingers at them? It’s a nice sentiment, but I doubt there’s significant merit to it. 3. Why should every member of a group be responsible for the actions of every other member of that group? Are we not all individuals? (“The Daily Show” made this point very well about 2 weeks ago.)

I’m not a proponent of any religion. I think passages from the Qu’ran as well as passages from the New and Old Testaments are despicable. There are extremists who will follow these tomes to the letter, including many Muslims. This is real and it is dangerous. I don’t have a solution that will address all of the root causes of the upswell in Muslim terrorism and extremism.

I do not agree that this email calls for the killing of all Muslims. I know there have been several instances of controversy regarding the Lord’s Prayer being shafted in favor of Muslim prayers at major institutions. I can’t speak to the validity of this claim. While I would like separation of church and state to actually exist, religious freedom should be extended to all. No group should be favored and allowed to practice if another is not.

The email mentions the dangers of labeling food as halal. Does anyone care if it’s labeled kosher? These labels mean nearly the same thing. (Muslims shopped at the Jewish market that was recently attacked in Paris!) I suppose this is an attempt to warn Western nations of the infiltration of their societies by especially motivated and mobilized outsiders. Instead of looking at this development as one toward greater unity and understanding, there are those who see it as a threat to their very existence. I do not condone any system that treats women and minorities as lesser, that puts religion above the safety and wellbeing of others, whether this is a perversion of the religion by some or not. Ooh, an imam supervised the baking of a chocolate bar. That’s really symbolic. Forget real terrorism. Now we should all be cowed.

Advertisements

Progressives: Stop Being Petty and Polemical

Tags

advice, America, American politics, argument, arms race, barack obama, Citizens United, Citizens United decision, climate change, communication, communism, congress, conservative, conservatives, culture war, culture wars, debate, decision, decisions, discussion, division, divisiveness, egalitarian, egalitarianism, email, equality, fairness, frank luntz, freedom, freedoms, fundraising, Gilded Age, gun, guns, historical, history, Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby decision, idea, ideas, ideological, ideology, immigration, inalienable rights, Karl Rove, Koch brothers, law, laws, lawsuit, lawsuits, legislation, liberal, liberals, liberties, liberty, message, messaging, obama, political, political advice, political advice for progressives, politics, President Barack Obama, president obama, prisoner's dilemma, progress, progressive, Progressives, progressivism, rhetoric, rights, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, talking points, Tea Party, tone, U.S., U.S. politics, united states, United States of America, unity, US, US politics, zero sum, zero-sum game

In one of my very first blog posts, I talked about how I thought progressive groups have a branding problem. That feeling has only been strengthened with time.

In email after email that I receive from different progressive political groups, I’m assaulted with the same type of message: a call to action against “the right-wing nut jobs”, “the gun nuts”, “Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and the dangerous Tea Party”. Sometimes the writers get really creative, leading one to believe they spend hours sitting in front of their laptops or tablets, experimenting with extreme alliterations and potential apocalyptic scenarios. The whole “the world as we know it is about to end…if you don’t donate $3 or more by this CRITICAL fundraising deadline” schtick is so old that I barely open these emails anymore.

Progressive talking points generally seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe someone decided to dumb it down a bit, deciding that pithy slogans and fear mongering were easier and sexier than winning an argument based on sound policy. Why inform the people when you can take a shortcut?

Sure, hate and ignorance will cohere the torch-wielding mobs (temporarily), but there are multiple problems with this strategy. Perhaps the most worrying is that engaging in this kind of dialogue–and I use that term as loosely as possible–necessitates an arms race of vitriolic rhetoric. Nearly everyone complains about how divided the country is. Let’s just divide it more, shall we? “But they did it first! We have to fight back!” And so it goes…
Besides selling citizens short, this approach dilutes the argument and dissolves credibility. If the other side is so bad, what makes your side better? When spokespeople bury their legitimate points in screeds against others, it’s very difficult to separate out the noise.

Another thing progressives don’t seem to understand is that the conservatives they so loathe at least pretend to stand for something. Of course, being “the party of no”, voting against bringing even the barest of legislation to the congressional floor, shutting down the government, and bringing lawsuit upon lawsuit against nearly everyone and everything to promote their self-described “culture war” should stand on its own as abhorrent behavior. Obviously, many of these people are “against” much more than what they are “for”.

There is a caveat, however. Decisions like the Hobby Lobby decision handed down by the Supreme Court are cloaked in the nebulous, but always-appealing brand of “freedom”. Personal liberty, historic imagery, and inalienable rights are so ingrained in the psyches of Americans since kindergarten that these tropes are difficult to argue against. Sure, there are nuanced polemics about “whose freedom is really being protected” and true (but often long winded and depressing) anecdotes about how many groups faced and continue to face discrimination throughout American history. Most of us know that “the good old days” weren’t really that great and that all of American history has been a kind of gilded age fight for the furthering of freedom.

For a brief stint, progressives followed President Obama’s line in repeating the ethic of equality. This idea should be compelling, but like scissors cutting paper in Rock, Paper, Scissors, “equality” is often no match for the far stronger sentiments evoked by “freedom”. This paper-thin concept that we should live a more egalitarian life is not something most people care about. Besides being fraught with the historically anathema association to communism, equality is more of a communitarian idea. If someone else getting more means that I lose some, why should I give that up? People are not persuaded by the idea of less for themselves; they are stirred by the possibility of more for themselves.

What should really be put forward is something along the line of fairness. If progressives can argue for fairness for specific groups or, especially, tailor this idea to individuals, I think they would be more successful. Framing an argument is important. Just as people are grabbed by headlines, the thesis and tone of an argument are what will stick in people’s minds more effectively than slews of statistics. This is not to say that arguments–both written and spoken–should skimp on content. I am instead promoting the idea that a measured, but consistent approach be taken when presenting issues of concern.

The idea of paycheck fairness is difficult to argue against. The main argument I heard by those against passing concrete legislation that sought to make it more difficult to discriminate against women in the workplace was that it simply wasn’t happening. That is a negation of the premise, but not an outright rebuttal.

If hot button issues like climate change and immigration are proving difficult to advance on, try changing tactics. There are always going to be ideological differences and “bridging the divide” is much easier said than done. It only serves to exacerbate the wound when you either aren’t really trying or have lost the argument before you’ve even started.

The Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions aren’t fair to most people, plain and simple. Even if we accept the premise that the rights of a few (those in charge of companies) are being impeded, what about the millions of workers and millions of voters impacted by such decisions? What laws like this state is that those who have money and power are worth more than the vast majority who have less. If you own a company or you have lots of money and friends in high places, you are legally entitled to a greater say in the workings of what is supposed to be a democratic country. The rights of a few (whose rights I would contend are not really being infringed) bump up against the rights of the much less powerful many. This is a corporatocracy that caters to vested, ideological (and often very misinformed) beliefs that simply is not fair.

Show people why THEIR rights are being restricted. Be FOR something instead of solely against something. Live up to your name, progressives, and be truly progressive. Maybe then we’d have a slightly better shot at mobilizing people. People want to do what’s in their interest. I believe that people would rather get something for themselves than hurt others. As long as politics operate in a zero-sum fashion (which they don’t have to, but they tend to), make people want to win. That is almost always more persuasive than making the other side lose.

Cognitive Dissonance: Conservatives and Government

Tags

allure, allure of government, America, American government, anarchist, anarchists, anarchy, atheism, atheist, atheists, Ayn Rand, Bible, campaigns, Capitol Hill, cognitive dissonance, communism, communitarianism, congress, conservatism, conservative, conservatives, D.C., DC, demographics, demography, diversity, E.P.A., elections, entitlement programs, entitlements, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, equality, federal government, food stamps, freedom, gay marriage, governing, government, Grover Norquist, gun control, guns, health, health care, healthcare, Henry David Thoreau, hypocrisy, ideology, Kryptonite, laws, Leviathan, libertarian, libertarianism, libertarians, limited government, local government, marriage equality, media, National Parks, Norquist, On Walden Pond, politics, power, Rand, religion, reproductive rights, S.N.A.P., safety, same sex marriage, secular, secularism, secularist, secularists, security, self reliance, small government, smaller government, SNAP, social security, socialism, society, stability, state, state government, states, taxes, Thoreau, U.S., U.S. Government, united states, United States Government, US, US Government, Walden, Walden Pond, Washington, Washington D.C., Washington DC, white house, women's rights

I have a pretty simple question. This is not meant to alienate anyone, but I’m curious about the answer. If you consider yourself a conservative, and claim government as the enemy, why would you want to be a part of the system?

I’m not quite sure when conservatism became synonymous with spending no money and dismantling government as we know it, but here we are. If you’d like to reform the system in such a way that it better serves people, to make it more efficient, I understand that. That does not, however, mean destroying the Environmental Protection Agency, privatizing all education, and taking a sledgehammer to unions. It doesn’t mean cutting food stamp programs by billions of dollars to starving children and families because Ayn Rand gave you the idea that you could pull yourself up by your bootstraps and, you know, ideologically, it just doesn’t sit well with you that there are people out there “getting handouts”.

Recently, I was attacked by someone as I know as being the kind of person who “loves government”, and who defends its practices. While this is a blanket statement–I don’t support everything the federal government of the United States does–yes, I tend to support government. Since when should that be an insult?

This is a word of warning to the anarchists and the so-called libertarians and all the others who fancy themselves modern day revolutionaries. We live in a country comprised of approximately 320 million people. Among those 320 million, there are varying states of education, income, opportunities, and health conditions. Even from state to state, living conditions vary widely. We live in a patchwork society of diverse demographics, from age to culture to ethnicity.

But more important than even our differences are our connections to one another. Even if you don’t believe in a kumbaya ideal or attach the words “communism” or “socialism” to anything that remotely resembles cooperation, you have to admit that we must interact with one another in society. We merge on the same roads. We go to schools and workplaces with others. We purchase goods and services on a daily basis. These are the basics.

And we all benefit from services provided by the government from traffic lights to mail delivery to public libraries. It was often cited in the direct aftermath of the recent government shutdown that the biggest winners were the National Parks. Even the most self reliant among us love our national parks. And who can resist nature? Thoreau did write about Walden Pond, after all.

Government–from the lowest levels to the highest–has a role to play. This role is a significant one. Whether we’re talking about “entitlement” programs or passing the very laws that enable us to live in a stable society, we need government.

Grover Norquist’s colorful imagery of shrinking government to the point that we can “drown it in the bathtub” is disgusting. I’d really like to see where all these people would be without government services.

You can’t say “hands off my guns” (and my taxes and my religion), and then decide that government overreach is non-existent when it comes to “pension reform” or controlling reproductive choices or shutting down marriage equality or denying atheists and secularists the same respect as religion (often mainstream Christianity) is afforded.

Is that the real aim: to remake society in one’s own image? To so fundamentally alter the landscape of the United States as to comport a self-styled combination of the Bible and the “good old days”? To decry diversity and change and progress? Perhaps the most effective way is to declare the evils of the monstrous government that swallows all of our money, that ever-growing Leviathan run by the evil corporatists and opportunists who work in a place worse than hell. This place–gasp–is called Washington, D.C., and it’s where dreams go to die. Worse yet, it’s where the government bogeymen are killing all of your dreams too.

…Except that many of the government haters work there too. From local governments to state houses, thousands of people who won elections on the idea that government is the root of all evil are reaping its benefits in the form of salaries, health care, jobs, contracts, success, relative levels of fame, and the furtherance of their agendas using the tool that’s supposed to be their kryptonite.

I’m a vegetarian. I hate the entire system that goes into the production of killing animals so that people can eat them. Do I continue to eat meat, and say how horrible the system is? No. If it’s so abhorrent to you, government haters, how can you be a part of it? Are you trying to change it from the inside, out? That begins with a respect for its very existence and the admission that you want to be a part of that system, at the very least. If principle is so important, at least be honest with the public and yourselves.

Give Me Liberty, Not Cyber Death

Tags

ACLU, boundaries, cyber, equality, facebook, federal government, freedom, government, Harry Potter, inequality, internet, justice, libertarian, libertarianism, liberty, online, politics, privacy, religion, rights, school, security, social networking, social networks, technology, tyranny, warrentless wiretap, warrentless wiretapping, work

The recent attempts by authority figures at curtailing individuals’ Facebook activity are disturbing.  Two recent examples of such action include attempts by employers to obtain new and prospective employees’ facebook passwords and the order by officials at a Crown Heights, Brooklyn high school that students must cancel their Facebook accounts or suffer expulsion from school (in addition to a $100 fine). 

It is a new, more open world in which technology allows activity that hasn’t been regulated.  Those who wish to control such activity by members of their groups are playing catch up, trying to exert control over people in a changing world.  The advent of Facebook creates a plane in which people can express themselves outside of the controlled environments of school or work.  On Facebook, the person is free to be himself or herself without the enforced constraints of these environments, and transcend the identifiers of “student” or “employee”.

Every day, I hear cries of “tyranny” used by people against the power of the federal government, and dismiss them as hyperbole.  In the cases of cyber infringement (more of which I’m sure are to come), a smaller private body is trying to get its overarching tentacles into the personal affairs of citizens in the same way that some allege that the federal government tries to control aspects of their lives.  I do not consider myself a Libertarian, but something must be said for personal freedom.  Let’s be clear: these individuals are not being targeted for engaging in illegal or otherwise criminal behavior.  No such invasion of their privacy or usurpation of their autonomy is necessary.  Was warrantless wiretapping ok in order to listen in on people’s conversations?  Many people thought it was not, and the reason given for such intrusive action was national security.  Though “national security” was an ill-fitting, catch all phrase, at least it hinted at the possibility of a real reason.  Nothing approaching this scale even comes close to the reasons behind destroying a large part of someone’s autonomy.  Again, not hyperbole. 

 With the number of Facebook profiles approaching the 1 billion mark, Facebook is no mere fluke or fringe movement.  It is a worldwide, easily accessible network, which makes it a threat.  It is also an extension of ourselves.  When the rabbis in charge of the Crown Heights school claim that the world created by the website is “not real”, they display a gross misunderstanding of the technology.  Interactions occur through Facebook, but profiles also serve as a conduit for a wide-ranging manner of personal information.  It is no wonder each page is called a “profile”.  From photo albums which chronicle important life events to the digital recognition of personal milestones to spaces in which everything from niche interests to news stories can be disseminated and connections can be built, Facebook is like the Room of Requirement for any person wishing to use it.  Yes, that was a Harry Potter reference.  The next thing you know, those frightened, ignorant adults will be trying to ban that book series too.  Oh, wait, that’s already happened.  Thanks, overzealous Christians who think that the wizards and sorcery in children’s books are the “devil’s work”. 

Digressions aside, we live in the 21st century.  Such technology cannot and should not be held back because it presents uncertainty for a ruling class in any situation.  Employers claim fear of liability if they don’t properly vet employees.  Fine, perform background checks.  Asking for a Facebook password oversteps any reasonable person’s bounds.  Social networking is very new.  The Internet is not much older.  It is easy to forge these facts because they have become such an integral part of our lives.  Because the youth have grown up in the cyber age, we have taken for granted the wonders of the Internet, particularly the freedom and the new degree of interconnectedness it allows us to have.  This is all the more reason we should be aware of attempts to chip away aspects of this from us.  Anything that upends the status quo is viewed warily by those in positions of power.  Facebook is the latest battleground.  We must protect our liberty, or someone more powerful will always try to take it away.

Looks Can Be Deceiving

Tags

America, Ann Coulter, appearance, Asma al Assad, assad, black, Black Panthers, civil rights, culture, deception, education, England, equality, fashion, George Zimmerman, globalization, homs, human rights, Jackie Kennedy, judgment, justice, Louboutin, Marie Antoinette, media, news, personality, politics, race, racism, Rome, Spike Lee, style, Syria, syrian revolution, syrian uprising, Trayvon Martin, twitter, Vogue

An English sophisticate with an avowed passion for human rights.  A hooded stranger lurking around at night.  A respected filmmaker and civil rights activist.  A woman publicly calling out injustice, another vigilante of sorts.

What do all of these people have in common?  They are sketches of human beings, the barest shadows of who these people are.  These four people recently made headlines.  Care to guess who they are?  The definitions are pretty vague.  The English sophisticate is Asma al Assad, Bashar al Assad’s wife, the hooded stranger is Trayvon Martin, the filmmaker and activist is Spike Lee, and the moral vigilante is Ann Coulter. 

Surprised?  You should be.  When we rely on heuristics to identify people, we run the risk of pigeonholing them.  We underestimate what these people are capable of—or, in some tragic cases—we overestimate.  Judgments are necessary, but before we stake our lives, the lives of others, our values, and our beliefs on people, we should take a closer look.

Asma al Assad was the toast of the international press, an “English rose”, touted Vogue, mere months before the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on dissenters.  The self-styled human rights activist, who had a world class education and elegant style, was seen as a kind of Jackie Kennedy for the Middle East.  She was expected to bring light to Syria.  Even after thousands were killed, some still held out hope that she would bring Western values of human rights, or, at the very least, an understanding of how the rest of the world viewed such atrocities, to Syria, and stop the violence.  Instead, it has come out that she was fully aware of what was happening, and actually attempted to trick and subvert the media.  She gained attention for being a kind of “Marie Antoinette” type of tyrant, a modern day Nero, fiddling while Homs (and other cities) burned.  Emails between her and friends reveal that she was dismayed—not at the plight of her people being murdered, but at the prospect of not being able to wear her $6,000+ crystal-encrusted Louboutin heels (one of many frivolous, extremely expensive purchases) that she had ordered in the middle of the massacres.  As one article cites, “in an ironic twist”, her family is actually originally from Homs, the city under the worst siege.  She even joked in emails recently sent to her husband that she is the “real dictator”.

Trayvon Martin appeared to be a threat to one George Zimmerman, neighborhood watch chief in a Florida town.  In reality, the 17 year old boy was unarmed, and was only 100 yards from his home when he was shot, carrying a bag of Skittles and an iced tea.  In the evidence that has come out since the shooting, there are clear indications of a racial element to Zimmerman’s actions.  At the very least, the overzealous vigilante killed a child.  Before we rush to judgment about exactly what happened and aim to exact revenge on Zimmerman (as the new Black Panther party has aimed to do by putting a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman’s head), we should realize that we weren’t there and fighting fire with fire will not put the fire out.  It is completely understandable that Zimmerman should be arrested, and outrage is justified.  Statements such as the always insightful Geraldo Rivera’s now infamous declaration that “the hoodie is just as much to blame for the death of Trayvon Martin as George Zimmerman” apply a superficial judgment and an inaccurate insensitivity to a solemn issue.  This event bears reflection, not idiotic statements and calls for further violence.

Spike Lee, known for his thought provoking work on the issue of race in America, has presented controversial issues in the past.  On Wednesday, March 28, 2012, however, Lee did not present nuanced art to his audience.  He took it upon himself to look up the address of the aforementioned George Zimmerman, and decided to tweet out this information to millions.  The address was not correct, and forced an elderly couple to flee their home, frightened for their lives.  The ripple effect of this tweet throughout thousands of other networks multiplied the impact exponentially in the short time it was available.  Lee eventually removed the tweet due to the outrage garnered by the mainstream media rebuke of his action.  Whether the address was correct or not, what a horrendous thing to do.  Do people not realize how such calls to violence undercut their cause, no matter how oppressed they feel?  Trayvon Martin’s parents have said that they want justice for their son, not the type of vigilante “justice” that was visited upon him in the first place.  They have made clear that an eye for an eye is not their aim.  If the victim’s own parents can have the strength to take the moral high ground, surely Spike Lee, who is certainly not suffering in the same way, could do the same.  Lee took his tweet down, but refused to apologize.  Now that I know this, I cannot respect Spike Lee.

Ann Coulter put out a cogent, reasonable tweet calling out Spike Lee on his behavior.  A top tweet in the aftermath of the Spike Lee debacle propelled Coulter to actually come out as a winner, a champion for human decency.  It was heartening to see that so many people had retweeted her message.  This was the extent of her ethics, however.  A look at nearly every single one of her other tweets will quickly reveal a bitter, divisive, disgusting human being whose currency is almost entirely composed of shock value and lies.  Racism is only the tip of the iceberg.  It is disheartening to see that Coulter is celebrated, and that her one ethical message probably served as a gateway to the uninitiated who may be swayed by her (at times subtly) prejudiced and fact lacking vitriol.

The moral of the story is that things aren’t always what they seem.  People are multifaceted.  Relying on quick cues to determine a person’s character has become even easier as news is reduced to soundbites and the only impression you might get of someone is offered in 140 characters or less.  In an increasingly globalized world—and, perhaps more importantly, an increasingly digitized one—really analyzing personality is fundamentally important.  The consequences are great, and looks can be deceiving, especially if these looks are based purely on first glances.