In the first days after Mohamed Osman Mohamud was arrested on a charge of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction at a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Ore., the news focused on, well, the attempt to use a weapon of mass destruction at a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Ore.
But as with previous terrorist plots, the media found it intolerable to keep attention exclusively or even primarily on a suspected radical Muslim for long. So in short order, we were treated to a combo platter of stories on the perils of being Muslim in notoriously bigoted America.
The thin reed on which this weird shift of focus rested was a small arson at a mosque, more than an hour's drive from Portland, where Mohamud had put in occasional appearances. One room was damaged, nobody was hurt, and no suspect had been arrested as of this writing.
A story worth covering? Yes.
A story in the same ZIP code of importance as a man who authorities say dialed a phone number that he believed would detonate a van packed with explosives in the midst of thousands of spectators at a tree-lighting? Most people named anything other than Osama bin Laden would say no.
But all sense of proportion was lost in the ceaseless news wire stories on the danger of a "backlash" against Muslims, or on how the FBI might have set up Mohamud.
Among the America-has-it-in-for-Islam headlines:
* "Ore. fire raises Muslims' fears of attack backlash" -- The Associated Press
* "OR Muslims plea[d] for safety after bomb plot arrest" -- the AP
* "Oregon Muslim leaders fear retribution after plot" -- the AP
And from the That-darn-FBI-is-prejudiced files:
* "Terror Stings Strain Ties With Those Who Can Help" -- The New York Times
* "Defense, friends say Ore. bomb plot suspect set up" -- the AP
* "Portlanders condemn bomb plot, criticize FBI probe" -- the AP
If a story can be both tragic and hilarious, though, it was a New York Times gem titled, "After Thwarted Attack, Question Is 'Why Portland?'"
Oh dear.
Well, let's see. It probably doesn't help that, according to the Times, "In 2005, the Portland City Council passed an ordinance that put conditions on the city's continued participation in the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force out of concern for the civil liberties of residents."
Translation: Portland opted out of reality by declaring that the city should not focus so much on, oh, say, a radical Muslim who might try to reduce thousands of Portlanders to a bloody pulp, but rather on those FBI meanies who want to keep Portlanders in the land of the living.
Let me try to word this so people with that mindset will understand: Portland telegraphed a message to the world that terrorist plots are less likely to be detected there than in other, saner locales. So the city should be no more surprised that such a plot might have zeroed in on Portland than sanctuary cities for illegal aliens should be surprised when they are up to their "Coexist" bumper stickers in illegal aliens.
To his faint credit, Portland's mayor says it might be time to rethink the non-cooperation policy. What was his first clue?
As for Muslims who are "pleading" for protection from supposed hordes of pitchfork-toting Americans, I'll wager that more Muslims would have died had the tree-lighting bombing taken place than are in serious danger from Americans upset about the plot.
B-double-E-double-r-u-n?
From the Signal Mountain High School website's "Football Team Rules & Important Dates" section -- which makes no distinction between on-campus and off-campus behavior: "NO athlete shall use alcohol, tobacco, or drugs of any kind during season. ... Any violation of the above mentioned rules WILL result in some disciplinary action [such as] extra conditioning, loss of playing time, loss of starting position, game suspension, and removal from the team."
(Oh WILL it?)
The section also notes that, "At Signal Mountain we believe in these basic principles."
Mm hmm.
They believe in winning state football championships, too. Yeah, baby, yeah!
Now pass the Coors.