Another strange episode corollation with the West Wing.

[Baitball Blogger]

We're on Season Three, Episode one and they're talking about terrorism. The White House was locked down because one of the employees were red flagged as a potential terrorist. So, while the employee gets racially profiled, a class of kids were stuck in the lunch room, getting lectures about terrorism.

I swear, what they were saying about extremist groups could be applied to MAGAs. One of the points made is that terrorist groups never stop trying to overthrow governments, but in the U.S., they have, so far, been 100% unsuccessful.

I was just left wondering, will this country ever get around to start racially profiling white right-wing men, the way they racially profiled dark skinned Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11.

[lapfog_1]

1. that was a special "out of story line" episode

titled Isaac and Ismail

in response to 9/11. very well done. and yes, pick almost any episode from the West Wing and you can find an interesting near corollary to the news today

[Aristus]

2. That's one of my favorite episodes, even though it exists independent of the storyline.

West Wingers seem to either love it or hate it.

I thought it was extraordinarily well-done.

And it presciently prefigured the level of political engagement of Gen Z. Those kids on the show could may as well be the Parkland High School kids. Josh told the "smart kid" to "Keep doing what you're doing."

[Baitball Blogger]

3. I had a feeling that Josh was going to tell him something else,

like offering the kid a job, but then decided to allow the boy to follow his own course.

[Backseat Driver]

4. I don't recall that episode, but in response to your question

I'd point you toward what seemed to indicate a fear that the tables of bigotry might turn, I'd like to ask how Americans felt about the instance of American Taliban John Walker Lindh who served a 17/20 year sentence with additional probationary restrictions? Or the Russian brothers who set pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon? or terrorized the DC area by random shootings?

I have every confidence that close "investigation of evidence" is not the same as profiling. Terrorism is more an act than a belief, so I think actual governmental "terrorists" have cause to worry of closer investigation as to their actions, including free speech, that IMO include advocacy, recruitment and funding. Publicly advocating violence against others might be "protected" civilly but isn't necessarily criminal and those that allow hate to overwhelm their beliefs/emotions should expect to be included in a closer watch of their actions. I think those that lose control need be rightly called out, shunned, and possibly called to court.

With mental health issues being what they've become in this country and embedded discriminations in play, it's very difficult to be proactive against governmental terrorism. What looks like reaction to investigated deeds would be the only process by which to early identify potential terrorists no matter what personal characteristic like skin color is known about the faction or individual/group/legal Party affiliation is involved. I really dislike plea deals to catch bigger fish. Lesser "crimes" that warrant watchfulness could include intimidation, extortion, bribery, stalking, vandalism, etc...There are rules one cannot cross, though. It's my opinion, there are political figures in our country that have crossed those lines with an intent to harm this country.