There is something particularly egregious about this article, too. Offering a slight elaboration on their bizarre headline, authors Farenthold and Boorstein offer this:
On Thursday, the discussion about Muslims' place--and Muslims' obligations--in American society will move to Capitol Hill. The hearing, called by Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), could be a key moment in one of the country's angriest conversations.
Who is having this angry conversation? Not me. Not most people. And, of those who are regularly discussing the place and "obligations" of Muslims, only a fraction of them have it angrily. But the article goes on:
Public opinion about Muslims hasn't changed much in recent years. In the fall, a Washington Post-ABC News poll asked whether mainstream Islam "encourages violence." Among all respondents, 31 percent said yes, slightly less than the recent high of 34 percent in 2003.
What's different now is the tone of the discussion--in Congress and across the country.
As evidence, the article cites comments made by Representative King, as well as a "string of incidents"--which means two incidents within eighteen months--and an increase in arrests of "violent jihad suspects from May 2009 to November 2010".
This is a non-issue made into an issue. To my mind, the real story here is the rhetorical social and political function of articles like this and hearings such as King's. They get people talking about terrorism again. And at a time when politicians want to cut spending on public pay and services, and on the same day a mass of public workers in Wisconsin are stripped of bargaining rights, terror talk helps keep defense cuts off the table, and public attention directed towards a meaningless sideshow.
The Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
