This story is in continuation of the complexity that is terror, immigration, vetting as related to a monolith narrative of muslims being painted for ideological reasons.
My mother in law suddenly passed away last friday. Her recently started chemo went horribly wrong, and she succumbed within 48 hours. I flew back with my wife and kids immediately to my country of origin, arriving here early sunday morning, and in time to attend the funeral.
On Monday, while still extremely jet lagged bur attending to some important chores, My wife and i heard about a peaceful protest with equally professional police in front of a government building. But later that night to find out that a third party with no relation to the protestors or any of the police force there, wreaked havoc.
While 99% of those people in this situation can be described as good citizens and sound civil servants of a particular religion, what would i as an external observer think? And this situation is not unique to my country of origin.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1314549/bomb-explodes-on-lahores-mall-road-during-protest
Anyhow, am not trying to belabour the point but just to accentuate that immigration is not a simple straightforward narrative of generosity pit against extreme opposition to it.
Sorry for your family's loss. Against a reckless devastating pathology, we pin our hopes on some very toxic agents which at times are more painful.than the disease they combat. Stll they offer hope, and when they fail ao early, or actually causes demise, it can co.pound the loss of life. Sincere sympathy.
You identified an important aspect of the conflict between differing opinions on some very profound human difficulties - those who wish to polarize groups by invecting violence to disrupt any chance of meaningful dialogue.
The avoidance of dialogue can be done by violent means or by simply shouting or shutting down opposition voices, which is occurring daily on u.s. college campuses
Absolutely correct. Extremism (and again i sometimes loath to use such words) is sometimes more disguised and definitely more prevalent than any time in my lifetime. Im 50. I lived in NYC since 1976 post Carter victory and aside from living in other countries from 1994-2007 for work, Ive lived here. Im sorry to say the predominant left/liberal debate is a set of talking points, that stiffle, kill and silence debate. The radical elements here, at the expense of sounding facetious, are no different.
There no longer appears to be productive dialogue between the parties whatsoever. In part this is why the general public has no use for either party and that paved the way for a Trump win. Party operatives decide what position to take on a bill, and then make sure every single member of their part votes for it. Democrats in particular will expel any member who breaks from party ranks on key issues, which is what was done to Joe Lieberman for supporting the war in Iraq. Battles are waged not in Congress but in sound bites to the media, which then shape the news any way they'd like to support objectives that are often liberal. This is why without the support of CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN, Trump was able to overcome this because much of the public saw through this radical bias. Something like 94% of news reported about Trump pre-election was negative, and post election have amped this up to 100%.
Take a single, important issue - vetting of immigrants from countries that have produced most radical terrorists:
1) Most people would agree that we don't want to restrict good and decent people from coming here form the countries affected.
2) Most people would agree that people coming from those countries must be vetted for ties to extremist groups, cells, or individuals
3) Most people would agree that we do not want people coming here who cannot be properly identified.
4) Most people would agree that the US should provide humanitarian assistance to those in nations besieged by ethnic and religious cleansing, and where groups like ISIS have seized control.
Yet, by sound bites, you would think that one side is markedly anti-Muslim, despite the fact that Christians are being raped and murdered in some of these countries and are among the most afflicted, and those groups are subject to the ban. You would think this is a worldwide Muslim ban, when those countries only represent 8% of the worldwide population of Muslims that are not affected by the ban. You would think the other side wants completely open borders, and that it has draped itself in Lady Liberty garb welcoming everyone here legally or not. You would think that one side wants every Latino who crosses the border illegally to remain here.
These are somewhat complex issues, yet our legislators have been polarized into dysfunction by party politics. Trump really isn't a Republican - he is a product of a dysfunctional system that Americans are fed up with.
