When it comes to guns, there are Two Americas

Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Fri, 06/27/2008 – 1:41pm

To blatantly borrow from John Edwards, when it comes to guns, there are two Americas.

In one America, Dick Cheney and Antonin Scalia would feel right at home. Guns are everywhere. Hunting is a nearby experience. I remember living in south central Michigan in the early 1990s in wonder when parents would take their kids out of school for the start of deer hunting season. I also remember the fear of driving the interstate highway at night during deer hunting season. The deer would be flushed out of the woods by the hunters, and the creatures often ended up on or near the highway. I have never seen a deer season where the highways were clear of deer remnants.

This is Ted Nugent’s America.

In the other America, Dick Cheney and Antonin Scalia would be really scared, especially without the protection they normally receive. In Chicago, we hear stories about kids and adults being killed with guns all the time. I keep hearing about how so many Chicago Public Schools kids were killed this past school year. The news is sadly almost delivered matter of factly, as if it wasn’t a big shock.

Those in the first America were thrilled with the 5-4 decision overturning the D.C. handgun ban. Those in the second America were disturbed by the ruling.

We are told in numerous pitches and inflections, especially by the MSM, that we are supposed to understand the rural areas, the working class, the Wal-Mart shopping, recreational hunters.

I confess I do understand them better than most people who live in a big city. I was once assigned to cover a hunting festival. I almost laughed when my boss suggested this. “I don’t know anything about hunting,” I quipped. “Good,” he said. “Then you’ll ask good questions.”

And he was right. I looked out of place, asked some stupid questions, and was treated really well by the people there. My boss loved the story, said I got some good insight.

So I do understand the first America. But what I really want is for the first America and Antonin Scalia to understand the second America. I want them to comprehend the worst sections of 21st Century Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles, and New York. I want them to understand that the rules are different in the big city.

Would Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts accept a rule where if a city has a certain number of people living within it, the city could impose a handgun ban? Probably not, perhaps the first America couldn’t accept such a provision.

Us here in the second America, we are Americans, too. And we want the opportunity for reasonable gun laws that apply to our communities, not just yours.

MSM treats politics like it’s a game; we know it’s about people’s lives

Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Fri, 06/27/2008 – 8:42am

Perhaps it seems at times that politics is just a game. After all, we do make fun of the MSM for covering the process as a horse race.

The strategies at FOX ‘News’ Channel, MSNBC, and CNN along with the major broadcast networks are to cover the contest not for who has the best ideas or what is the best for the country, but more like who got in the best shot and who was best at being deceptive.

But politics isn’t a game; it’s real life. It’s my friend who called me late last night considerably upset over the overturning of the D.C. handgun ban. And she’s worried about increased crime where she lives if handguns become more prominent. She didn’t grow up in the United States (she’s Canadian), and she doesn’t understand our relationship with guns.

This conservative commentator seems to think politics is a game, and he has some advice for Keith Olbermann:

Here’s an inconvenient truth, Keith: You should be rooting for John McCain. Across the spectrum, openly partisan news coverage does the most good and has the most pizzazz when it’s at odds with power. Back when newborn Fox was chewing Bill Clinton’s jugular for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, everyone except Bill’s ball and chain could see that vast right-wing conspiracies have their upside. It’s never bad to have a prominent media outlet hell-bent on not letting the Oval Office’s occupant get away with much.

The one major news figure who has a background as a sportscaster is one of the few who realizes that politics isn’t sports, isn’t a horse race, that it’s about how to make lives better. And this guy wants to give Olbermann advice on how to boost ratings.

You could argue that a President Obama will shake up the dynamic for a number of media outlets. Imagine The Daily Show or the Colbert Report or even BuzzFlash.com in a world with a President Obama. Yes, things will be different. But one guarantee is certain: there will still be plenty of things to talk about, to write about.

Barack Obama, or any other human being, can only do so much. And there is a lot of damage that has been done. The cleanup will last a long time; the more we pitch in to help, the less time it will take. But there is a lot of work to do.

Olbermann, the Comedy Central shows, BuzzFlash, and more will have plenty to discuss in an Obama Administration. But the conservative commentator is probably right about one thing: the ratings for FOX ‘News’ Channel will likely go up if Obama becomes president. That is just one cross we will have to bear.

Gwen Ifill Responds to BuzzFlash Complaint About an Altered PBS Transcript

Originally published on BuzzFlash.comon Fri, 06/27/2008 – 8:10am

You might be a fan of one of our regular features: Verse-Case Scenario by Tony Peyser. But Tony is more than just a poet. And hopefully, you read his piece earlier this week concerning a transcript discrepancy on “Washington Week in Review.”

To refresh your memory, here was the original transcript from last Friday’s episode:

MS. IFILL: A couple other developments that are worth remarking even though they happened at the beginning and it now seems like a long time ago. Al Gore came out of the closet here and endorsed — we don’t know where he’s been exactly.

MR. HARWOOD: Careful.

MS. IFILL: Come on. He came out and he endorsed Barack Obama.

Peyser’s original complaint was that there were rumblings in the crowd of dismay and disapproval not reflected on the transcript.

The ultimate response by the show: instead of reflecting the audience reaction, the entire conversation was removed from the transcript. This was the response not by FOX or CNN, but PBS and “Washington Week in Review.”

But ultimately, the good news is that after complaining, the transcript was restored, sort of:

MS. IFILL: A couple other developments that are worth remarking even though they happened at the beginning and it now seems like a long time ago. Al Gore endorsed.

MS. IFILL: A couple other developments that are worth remarking even though they happened at the beginning and it now seems like a long time ago. Al Gore came out of the closet here and endorsed – we don’t know where he’s been exactly.

MR. HARWOOD: Careful.

MS. IFILL: Come on. He came out and he endorsed Barack Obama. He’s a big Democrat. He was the nominee of the party in 2000. What took him so long and does it make a difference?

This might seem like we made a mistake, and there’s a repeat of most of the first paragraph. This is EXACTLY as it runs on the transcript page, and the first paragraph that stops at “Al Gore endorsed” is what was there in the censored version. They kept the censored version, and put back in the other words. And they still didn’t put in the crowd’s reaction.

The fun part of this was that Gwen Ifill herself wrote back to Tony Peyser. She did admit the transcript should not have been changed. Ifill also seemed to think that Peyser was making more of this than there was.

The funny, or not so funny, part of that was that Tony WASN’T trying to do that at all. He didn’t attack Ifill for her usage as much as wanting an exact reflection of the incident in the transcript. And the show’s initial response was to remove the entire conversation from the record.

The cruel irony to this is the show has a video of the episode that hasn’t been doctored. Everything is there, including the audience reaction that Peyser originally thought should have been in there.

When doing a live on tape TV show, sometimes stupid things are said. If you sincerely apologize, there shouldn’t be any backlash. But while what Ifill said was inappropriate, the reaction to a simple e-mail from a TV viewer was even worse. Instead of thanking Peyser for his passion, they decided to remove the entire context, to not own up to it.

We know not to trust certain media outlets. But we always hope that PBS should be free from that pressure. This time, at least, we were let down.

John McCain’s character shows through by not forcing Charlie Black to resign

Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Thu, 06/26/2008 – 11:36am

We are told that one characteristic to look for in determining the viability of a presidential campaign is how the candidate reacts when one of the people says something inappropriate.

When Samantha Power made her “monster” remark, she expressed remorse within the sentence she was speaking. Power offered to resign, and the Obama campaign wanted her to resign as well.

“She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything,” Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

Yet when Charlie Black speaks of how another major terrorist attack will help McCain, Black gets to keep his job.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event,” says Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.

Now Richard Clarke was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann calling for the resignation of Black from the McCain campaign. “Charlie Black ought to be gone tomorrow morning.”

It says a lot about the McCain campaign that he hasn’t called upon Black to resign, and it says quite a bit about Black in that he didn’t voluntarily offer to resign.

The “monster” comment obviously wasn’t very nice, but doesn’t even come close to the horrible things Black has said about the Bhutto assassination and any potential terrorism threats.

John McCain’s $300 million alternative car battery prize is cheesy, but specific

Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Tue, 06/24/2008 – 9:16am

$300 million.

I’m so excited that John McCain is giving me a chance to make $300 million. It will fulfill my lifelong, er, well, six-month dream:

To be richer than Cindy McCain.

I didn’t think it was possible to ever be in this situation. Sure I could play the lottery, win $20 million or $40 million, and be set for life. But Cindy McCain could still look down at me. Reaching $300 million would allow me to climb beyond Cindy McCain’s fortune.

Yes, Sen. John McCain announced a $300 million prize to the person who can develop a battery that will “leapfrog” what we get from current hybrid and electric cars.

Now, McCain didn’t make it clear what standard of battery would qualify, and unless Cindy is putting up part of the money, nobody is getting rich right now. But according to Toshiba’s press release, the battery charges 90 percent full in 5 minutes, and can last 10 years.

So is Toshiba $300 million richer if McCain is elected?

When McCain says, “in the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure,” does he really know his subject matter?

There has been work, not always government-sponsored, to find better solutions. For anyone who has seen “Who Killed the Electric Car,” they know there have been better options that government has not embraced. There was a line, and I’m paraphrasing Ed Begley Jr. when he talked about the electric car and whether it was practical to have a car that could only travel 250 miles on a charge. He essentially said that it would be applicable to 90% of car trips.

McCain also says, “From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success.” But the insincerity of the $300 million prize is what is troubling. Yes, we need to invest in alternative energies (not just for cars), and government needs to do its part to make that investment.

But that $300 million needs to be spread out over a number of ideas, some of which might fail. But success often rises through failure. And hydrogen cars might be viable long-term, but electric cars can come around now to help short-term. And there are cars such as this one that boasts 300 miles to the gallon in typical driving conditions.

McCain did have some good points, calling for $5,000 tax credits for buyers of alternative energy cars. And he spoke out in favor of ethanol alternatives to corn-based ethanol, specifically tariffs on sugar cane-based ethanol from Brazil. And it’s good to see a Republican presidential candidate try to make a mark for alternative energy cars.

But Obama seems to have a better handle on this pursuit away from being handcuffed by the price of oil. A few more specifics from Obama would be nice, and you have to wonder why McCain is first with specifics? And it’s virtually guaranteed those ideas won’t be as cheesy as a $300 million prize.

John McCain’s financing ethics needs the attention of the MSM

Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Mon, 06/23/2008 – 2:04pm

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-17-2008/lara-logan

Jon Stewart: Do you watch the news that we’re watching?

Lara Logan: If I were to watch the news that you hear in the United States — I’d just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, June 17, 2008

Well, Lara, we do watch that news, and the prospect of that can really be depressing. Especially when the information is incomplete or one-sided, the MSM can claim it’s “telling the truth,” but it’s not the whole truth.

The latest misguided adventure by the MSM is over Barack Obama’s “switch” on public financing.

The incomplete truth: The promise Obama gave was a conditional promise on a questionnaire that was not filled out by Sen. McCain. Given the behavior of Sen. McCain (details in a moment), it’s fair to say a compromise would not be reached.

Merriam-Webster defines conditional as “subject to, implying, or dependent upon a condition” and condition defined as “a premise upon which the fulfillment of an agreement depends.”

Now, if media figures don’t understand what a conditional promise is, perhaps they need to give their interns a raise so they can buy a dictionary and look it up.

The one-sided truth: a presidential candidate with numerous alleged FEC violations; several flip-flops on whether to accept public financing or private financing, including insinuating on the same day that you might not take public financing and then do, all well within 24 hours. If you were covering a presidential campaign where a candidate did all the above and more, you might think that was a huge story.

Well, that is the John McCain story, and it barely registers a peep with the MSM.

From a BuzzFlash alert from last week:

He uses a loophole in a law he supported to fly inexpensively on his wife’s company’s private jet and allegedly withdrew illegally from the public financing system, an action the Democratic National Committee wants investigated by the Federal Election Commission and has filed a lawsuit to compel the investigation.

Until the MSM starts reporting this, they have no credibility on this issue. There are two major party presidential candidates with records. Let’s start seeing the MSM wake up and look beyond their infatuation with McCain.

Tim Russert and the olé school of journalism

Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Fri, 06/20/2008 – 2:36pm

Tim Russert has been buried with a beautiful memorial service. The worlds of politics, journalism, and television have had a whirlwind in the last 7 days. What Russert’s untimely death means to the 2008 race depends on which world you live in, and how it may affect you.

NBC has clearly thought naming a permanent replacement or a temporary replacement wasn’t appropriate at this time and place. Brian Williams gets the first nod in the new chair (Tim Russert’s son, Luke, said he now has his father’s old chair), interviewing Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the guests Russert prepared for 7 days ago before he collapsed and died.

Russert has been seen as a proud beacon of journalism (from a lot of his fellow colleagues) and a reasonably nice cog, but still a cog in the MSM machine where we sort of ask tough questions, but not really getting much from the experience (many but not all BuzzFlash readers).

But I think I finally figured out where the difference comes into those two perceptions. From fair.org:

Asked about the failure to more aggressively challenge the White House on Iraq, Russert once explained (3/21/06): “Well, you know, there’s really no alternative. There are a lot of people on the far right or the far left who want someone in my situation to yell and scream or lean over and choke somebody or slap them around and a lot of histrionics, but you really don’t achieve anything because you make your guest immediately sympathetic, and I much prefer just to try to steady as you go, draw people out.”

MSM journalism feels like bullfighting, or at least, what I perceive bullfighting to be. The bullfighter stands there with a red cape while the bull charges through, and the crowd cheers. Repeat.

This is what a lot of mainstream journalism feels like. The person speaks, let them go by without a thought, and then ask the next question. It’s the olé school of journalism.

Real bullfighting is likely more machismo, which means in the world of MSM, what Russert did seems more courageous. But to the rest of us, Russert certainly was better than many “TV pundits” but still not at the level we need from worlds of politics, journalism, and television.

Barack Obama’s openness on improving free trade will help him in November

Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Fri, 06/20/2008 – 10:16am

Barack Obama’s stance on renegotiating trade issues with Canada and Mexico hasn’t really changed, even if the specifics of NAFTA are up in the air.

Obama did say in March he would renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement (NAFTA). And Obama told Fortune magazine for its upcoming issue that “sometimes during campaigns, the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.”

But here is where it gets interesting. From Fortune magazine:

Obama said he believes in “opening up a dialogue” with trading partners Canada and Mexico “and figuring to how we can make this work for all people.”

That still sounds like NAFTA could still be renegotiated, and as I have mentioned before, Canada and Mexico would also love to renegotiate NAFTA for their own “selfish” reasons.

And this is more than John McCain has said so far, but McCain is speaking in Canada’s capital of Ottawa. In the speech McCain is supposed to come out in favor of keeping NAFTA as is.

The CBC quotes McCain this week as saying, “To say that we’re going to unilaterally renegotiate treaties with our closest allies, Canada and Mexico, I think is a course that is fraught with great difficulties.”

McCain comment doesn’t reflect any awareness of the stances of NAFTA from Canada or Mexico. And McCain’s reluctance, at least so far, to in Obama’s words be up for “opening up a dialogue” with trading partners Canada and Mexico, is very short-sighted. Even if McCain thinks Obama went too far in his remarks in March, McCain hasn’t gone anywhere.

And while the governments of Canada and Mexico love NAFTA more than their citizens do, there are issues where both governments would love to change NAFTA. So Obama’s original statement in March and his current revision would still go over well in the two neighboring countries.

But as a Canada-ophile, McCain’s visit is huge: his trip to Ottawa is believed to be the first appearance on Canadian soil of an American presidential candidate. Obama may have to make a trip himself north of the border at some point to make his case as well.

And McCain’s appearance is a startling contrast to the appearances by fellow Republican George W. Bush. Bush’s 1976 DUI in Maine makes him ineligible to enter Canada without a waiver, plus he has spent preciously little time on Canadian soil. So McCain entering without any fanfare, and while still a candidate, is a big deal.

But in free trade, Obama has to make a decision as does McCain. Which way are you going on free trade?

McCain seems poised in his speech in Ottawa to praise NAFTA and its take on free trade. And while we assume that McCain is playing to his base in taking that stand, many people who vote Republican or independents who might be in McCain’s camp have been financially screwed by free-trade agreements. You can say a lot of these people have voted against their economic interests (Reagan Democrats), but McCain doesn’t have the charm and firepower to overcome economic concerns, especially as bad as the current economic state reflects on their lives.

McCain’s speech may be lapped up by the economic conservatives, but the social conservatives, those who really know how much a gallon of milk costs, aren’t going to be happy. Obama’s views, while slightly shifted, still allows an openness in improving trade with Canada, the U.S.’ largest trading partner, and Mexico. If McCain can’t match that, Obama will have a significant edge in the fall in the economic column among crucial Independents and Republicans.

Make Keith Olbermann the new ‘Meet the Press’ host

Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Fri, 06/20/2008 – 8:45am

MORE UPDATES: This link from the anti-Olbermann Web site “Olbermann Watch” is rather hilarious, only in that it refers to this article and claims that I wrote the article while on drugs. I’m honored that my work touched them so much.

UPDATED: Keith Olbermann has vehemently denied rumors from the New York Post (owned by Rupert Murdoch) that he threatened to quit if he isn’t given Tim Russert’s job as host of “Meet the Press.” Olbermann also said, “But I don’t even consider myself qualified for it.”

It is fair to say that Olbermann hasn’t gunned for the position, and has gone out of his way not to do so. But when the appropriate time comes to name a permanent successor, he would be qualified for the job.

Yes, it has been only three days since the death of Tim Russert. And you might think it cold, given that short period of time, to reflect on who should succeed Russert in that chair.

Then again, Jon Friedman of MarketWatch beat me to the punch, within three hours of the announcement of Russert’s death, Friedman recommended David Gregory for the pick.

You could definitely make an argument for Gregory. But the image of him dancing with Karl Rove would give me great pause in naming him to the permanent selection, since relationships such as that is what is wrong with Washington journalism. And given the direction Russert took the program, a Gregory appointment feels like a step back.

It is fair to say that regardless of what you might think of Russert, he did save “Meet the Press” (MTP). “Meet the Press” struggled after Bill Monroe left in 1984. Roger Mudd and Marvin Kalb served as co-moderators (1984-1985), and Kalb did it solo (1985-1987). The other short-term hosts were Chris Wallace (1987-1988) and Garrick Utley (1989-1991).

The next host will have to establish his or her own legacy to the program. Given our times, and the overall timidity of the Washington press corps toward Bush and Republicans, the program deserves someone who can stand up to government, regardless of who is in charge. And that person is Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann has stood up to Republicans and Democrats. He is one of the best writers in any form on television today, and could add a special comment at the end of “Meet the Press.” And he is the only one currently at NBC News who has the reputation of asking the tough questions of all sides, a true tradition of “Meet the Press.”

If you think that Olbermann wouldn’t be seen as being worthy of the big network stage, NBC has run Sunday night editions of “Countdown” on the broadcast network, and the New Yorker notes that Olbermann was considered not once but twice as the anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” a job that later went to Katie Couric.

If Olbermann got the MTP position, he would more than likely have to relinquish his sports duties – Olbermann has helped out on NBC’s Sunday night football coverage. He might also have to give up the anchoring he had done during the primaries, taking more of a sideline reporter position, along the lines of what Russert did on those primary coverage evenings.

The big question is whether Olbermann would still do “Countdown.” Olbermann should still be able to do both shows, but perhaps be given more time off for “Countdown,” giving Rachel Maddow more of the screen time she deserves on MSNBC.

Olbermann and Gregory will be on the short list, since the network will likely fill from within the ranks of NBC News, an understandable move. But who else would be on the list?

Friedman and I agree on one thing: Chris Matthews should not be considered. Among many reasons, his style isn’t conducive to the Sunday morning tradition. Chuck Todd is an outside pick, but his name will likely come up.

One name from the outside but who does have experience at NBC News is Gwen Ifill. Ifill, host of “Washington Week in Review” and contributor to the “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” has worked at NBC News, and would be a great pick if someone from outside the network is chosen. If Olbermann isn’t picked, she would be my second choice.

There is a serious possibility than NBC will make a short-term appointment later this week, since we are in the middle of perhaps the most exciting presidential race in 40 years. The USA Today is reporting that an interim host is expected to be named sometime after Russert’s funeral. So the network could turn to a temporary caretaker, such as Tom Brokaw, who hosted the tribute yesterday to Russert in the MTP timeslot, or Andrea Mitchell.

NBC has a really tough choice. But as Russert has taught us, the selection impacts all of us, the 2008 race, and on some level, democracy itself. The network may make two decisions: short-term and long-term. In the long run, Keith Olbermann is just the right candidate who appreciates the past of television reporting and who understands the future of television reporting needs to be straightforward, blunt honesty. On some level, Russert would completely understand that transition.

Is there someone else you think would do a better job than Olbermann? Or perhaps you want to keep Olbermann right where he is. Or maybe you like the sugesstion of either Olbermann or Ifill. Either way, let us know who you want to see as the next host.

We need to start seeing Muslim citizens as regular Americans

Originally published on BuzzFlash.com on Thu, 06/19/2008 – 9:44am

_{The cast from the CBC show “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” a show that tries to enlighten viewers on the world of Muslims. An American version will appear soon on FOX.}

In World War II, we had three major enemies: Germany, Italy, and Japan. Guess which one’s fellow people we primarily put into internment camps during the war. If you guessed the non-European country (Japan), you get a gold star. (Yes, we also interned German-Americans and Italian-Americans, but not nearly to the extent of the Japanese-Americans.)

The people of Japanese descent were no more of a threat to the American people in the 1940s than the American Muslims of the 21st Century. And yet, instead of learning from the horrors of the Japanese internment camps, our ignorance rolls on.

As a kid, I remember seeing horrible Japanese caricatures in Looney Tunes cartoons. Two troubling examples are “Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips” and “Tokio Jokio.”

We were at war with the Japanese for just under 4 years. But the “war on terror” continues, which is not so good news for Muslims who live in the United States. True, we aren’t interning them in camps, so we did learn that lesson. But the discrimination continues.

A volunteer for the Barack Obama campaign, citing politics as the reason, withdrew an invitation to two Muslims in head scarves from appearing behind the Democratic presidential candidate for the television cameras in Detroit.

The Obama campaign quickly apologized for the volunteer’s actions, and also for another volunteer who reportedly told a Muslim supporter she could participate only if she removed her scarf. And it should be pointed out that Obama has appeared on several occasions with Muslims, and the day after the Monday incident in Detroit, Obama was photographed with a group of supporters that included a woman wearing a scarf.

The fact that this story happened in Detroit is even worse, since nearby Dearborn has traditionally had the most Arabs per capita of any U.S. city. In the 2000 Census, Arab Americans comprised 30% of Dearborn’s population, and this doesn’t include numerous Iraqi immigrants who have arrived since the Iraq war began. And the majority of more recent Arab immigrants have been Muslims.

The element of discrimination against Muslims also has a gender bias. A male Muslim can stand behind in a crowd, and not be an issue. But the head scarf, or hijab, or more extensive covering makes Muslim women more identifiable.

If there were an Institute of Irony, they would fully support having a presidential candidate in 2008 with a Muslim sounding name while we have this ongoing battle in this “war on terror” where every potential person who looks like the people who did horrible things to us might be seen as an “enemy.”

Everybody in the world can be our enemy or can be our friend. It doesn’t matter if they dress in lederhosen, hijabs, yarmulkes, or even like a Canadian lumberjack. Our colleague Dave Lindorff points out that we have no enemies, only countries where we disagree.

There might be a sliver of hope. FOX has announced an American version of the CBC show “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” which bills itself as “small town Canada with a Muslim twist.” The show focuses on the Muslim community in the fictional prairie town of Mercy, Saskatchewan. The two seasons of the program have received critical acclaim within Canada and notice from outside the country as well.

At some point, we finally figured out that the Japanese citizens weren’t out to get us. So at what point will we reach the point where Muslim citizens can be treated normal, or whatever passes for normal in U.S. society.