WASHINGTON - Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) found herself in political hot water yesterday after Republicans blasted her for remarks in which she seemed to compare Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to America's founding fathers.

Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh excoriated her on his nationwide radio show yesterday and both the Democrat and the Republican on CNN's Crossfire criticized her, as did the No. 2 House Republican leader, Rep. Tom DeLay (R., Texas).

Lucas County Auditor Larry Kaczala, who is likely to challenge Miss Kaptur next year as she seeks a 12th term, wrote on his campaign stationery that her remarks comparing terrorists to America's revolutionaries were "the most outrageous and sick comparison I have ever heard."

He called on her to resign.

So what did she say that was so horrible?

Miss Kaptur, who has been outspoken in her opposition to a war with Iraq for months, told Blade religion editor David Yonke in a story published Saturday that religious fervor is a strong element of modern terrorism.

It is similar, she said, to the "nontraditional American revolutionaries" such as the Green Mountain Boys, a Vermont militia group, and religious groups that had fled religious persecution in Europe and were determined to be free.

"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these nonnation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."

Now what's to criticize about that?  I'm not a big US history buff, but even I have heard of the Green Mountain Boys, and other groups around that time who were very religious, and that was their main motivation for fighting for a free homeland.  And pretty much everyone knows that a lot of the initial settlers of America were Puritans and other outcast religious groups (we'd call then nutty kooks today, and the FBI would have them under heavy surveillance, you realize) whose main reason to be in the pre-US was that they weren't welcome back in Jolly Olde.  So they certainly had a personal stake in the war for independence and a hatred for the English army.

And there is an obvious parallel to the religiously-motivated Osama bin Laden and pals.

It's not a perfect metaphor, since the US Founding Fathers wanted their homeland and freedom where they were living, and could achieve that with use of force in their local area.  There wasn't any blowing up of buildings back in London, not that such a tactic would have been effective or even feasible, in the slow travel days of that time.  Hijacking a frigate and running it into a dock on the Thames would have been a bit less destructive than the WTC place crashes.

The Congresswoman said nothing about the "founding fathers" or George Washington, or the entire struggle in general.  So the people criticizing her were doing so out of their own ignorance of her comments, American history, or just through a willful disregard of the actual meaning and context of her remarks.  Probably the latter, for the most part, given who is doing the criticizing.

Further clarification required?

She explained her remarks the next day.

"It appears my statement has been purposefully taken out of context. Partisan political maneuvers, at this serious moment in history, serve neither America nor our quest to conquer this dangerous enemy of free people.

"My comments were intended to point out that what faces us is a rising revolution being felt across repressive regimes of the Arab and Islamic world. That revolution is aimed at casting off the existing order. Not to recognize the magnitude of the fervor that is being turned against America is to ignore the real enemy.

"The American people understand the power of revolution. It is in that context that I referred to the American Revolution. World powers have been born out of revolution. Terrorism in the name of revolution is not acceptable. Ever."

 Now besides the obvious political point of conservatives trying to make some political hay from her comment, what motivates such anger and fury about someone making a somewhat scholarly and historical comparison?  Here's what I think.

Many people are deeply afraid to think.  After the events of 9/11, there was an immediate rush of sentiment along the lines of, "Why did this happen in America?  Why can these people hate us so much?" This came from the average American, in shock and wonderment.

The official reaction from the government was very different, and it was almost all along the lines of "We will find out who did this, and we will strike back." There was no hint of soul searching or introspection on a national level, and in fact there was a lot of the opposite.  Conservative types (like the Bush Administration) were in fact quite against giving any consideration of why, or when, or how such hatred could be explained, or what could be changed in US policy in reaction to it.  All action was focused on the military and revenge, and any consideration of root causes was swiftly stamped on.  The perpetrators were labeled "insane" and "evil" and other childish labels, since you don't have to try and understand or debate psychos.  You can just try to exterminate them and pretend there aren't any others like them, and that the root causes of their passions/motivations aren't important.  It's a very short-sighted technique, something like stamping out a trail of ants while making no effort to find the hive, or much less remove whatever is drawing the ants in the first place.

Broad generalizations to follow, mostly in terms of the "who" I am actually talking about.  Call them close-minded Americans, or Republicans, or Conservatives, or war-mongers.  I don't have a neat term that fences in the entire demographic, and lots of people have some of the traits I'm going to be talking about, while not fitting into the others.  But just try and play along with the big picture, rather than looking for nit picks in the minor details.

This reminds me, for some reason, of the whole Pledge of Allegiance brouhaha from last year, where objective it's an open and shut case. Saying "under god" in a mandated national pledge is undeniably an endorsement of religion, and violates the separation of church and state that is enshrined in our Bill or Rights.  I don't see what there is to debate about the facts of the case.

And there is no debate, at least going by the opposition to the change (which is the majority of the country and a near unanimity of politicians). The people who want to keep "under god" in the pledge have no argument, other than that they want to keep "under god" in the pledge. They skip right over any objective or analytical or logical reasons.  The question is, do they do that since they realize they have no legal leg to stand on?  Or are they literally unable to see the case with anything approaching objectivity?  Are they so anchored in their private little pond of ignorance that they simply can not think of it from any other perspective than the one that's been spoon fed to them?

The Congresswoman made two main mistakes.  Number one was expecting people to know enough about American History and current world events (in terms of Islamic society, especially) to know what she was talking about. Number two was the bigger one, and that was expecting people to be able to hear her words and think for themselves what they meant, using some intelligence and objectivity.

For every Rush Limbaugh who cares nothing for her actual meaning or objectivity or intelligent dialogue, there are a lot of other people who object just out of ignorance.  Who can't think for themselves, or refuse to, and look to demagogic Pied Pipers like Limbaugh to tell them how they should react or think.

In this case, I think that Rush is probably smart enough to know better.  He probably read the quote and realized what she was saying, but in his intellectual dishonesty (Ann Coulter style) he just ignores that. Since he's built his career on pandering to the most ignorant common denominator, he is not interested in intelligent dialogue or discourse.  He's interested in twisting the comments of a liberal Congresswoman until it sounds like she's saying (American hero) George Washington was a worse person than (American nightmare) Osama bin Laden.  And I would expect that most of Rush's idiot listeners just lap it up with a spoon. (Or perhaps a tongue. Whatever you lap things up with.  I'm not big on lapping.)

As I started to ponder a few paragraphs ago, the question to me is why "they" (Republicans, Conservatives, etc) are so frightened of any thinking, or viewing something shocking with an open mind? As I see it, they do not want to understand.  They refuse to understand. Quite intentionally refuse.  "Moral Clarity", for them, seems to require a lack of understanding.

It's not a case of reading and talking and gaining insight into the other side's PoV, and then rejecting it as wrong minded.  It's a case of looking only at the very worst actions of the other side, not giving a thought to which of your actions might have caused their actions, and then concluding that they are evil.

There is such a need among some people to just write off all of the Anti-Americanism, ranging from war protests, to governments voting against the US, to actual terrorism.  Write it off as jealousy or madness or anarchy or whatever. Write it off as anything, since then you don't have to consider that they might have a point, and that something you've been doing might actually be causing them to feel that way. Or God forbid, that they might actually be right, in some cases.

Dubya terms everything in "good and evil" as if life were some sort of bad action movie, where the "bad guys" exist solely to do something dastardly and loathsome, an act which serves solely to motivate and mobilize the good guys for their eventual triumph over the forces of evil.  Unfortunately, life isn't a Hollywood movie.  The "bad guys" aren't just evil for the sake of being evil.  They believe just as sincerely in what they are doing as the "good guys" do, and who is evil is entirely a matter of opinion.

I guess my pondering comes down to wondering if it's intentional dishonesty, or if it's a sort of mental illness, or at least a mental weakness.  Do people actually have an inability to think about things with an adult mindset? Does it just never even occur to them to try to analyze their enemy's PoV and figure out where they are coming from?

I don't think this is in any way limited to just US foreign policy; most people live this sort of thing in their daily lives, where arguments over something small and stupid escalate until both parties are shouting angrily.  And in retrospect both realize that they were pretty stupid about the whole thing, or one realizes that they (he) was entirely wrong about it all along.  Admitting you are wrong is difficult for almost everyone, especially in the heat of the moment, and especially when it might require introspection and life style changes.

The lack of objectivity is actually a great political advantage for stupid people, or the leaders who embrace what stupid people want.  If you can just appeal to the broadest ignorance in society, whatever society you are in, and focus the peoples' hates and fears, they will overlook any amount of evidence to the contrary, simply because they don't wish to see it. Paint your enemies as evil and trample over any voices of moderation, say it's a struggle between right and wrong (with the obvious implication that your side is right) and who will dare to argue with you?

And if you realize that the last argument applies equally to both sides in in current "US vs. Iraq/the whole world issue," as well as just about every other major conflict throughout the history of time, you have earned your cookie for the day.

Now all I need is some Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh type to read this, be pissed off about it, and boil it down to something intentionally-misleading like, "Flux says America refuses to realize it was wrong; deserved 9/11."