News reports of yesterday’s “town hall meeting” with Rep. Sue Myrick and local Muslims refer to the longtime area politician “hoping to repair her relations with [the] Muslim community,” to “build bridges.” I guess you have to report things that way; after all, that *is what Myrick said. What’s left unsaid in such stenography journalism, however, is the obvious question:  How do you build bridges you’ve repeatedly burned?

Several speakers at the meeting criticized Myrick’s 2003 statement regarding Muslims running convenience stores. She tried to defend the statement, saying it had been taken out of context and that “I wasn’t off the wall.” OK, let’s do put her statement in context. After 9/11, many people were seeing Islamic terrorists behind every tree — anyone remember the guy arrested Uptown for taking videos of the Charlotte skyline? — and in 2003, some Muslims in Charlotte were arrested for helping Hezbollah in Lebanon by sending the group a portion of the money they’d made from smuggling cigarettes. It was within that context that Myrick talked repeatedly of her fear that Islamic terrorists were plotting against the U.S. everywhere within the country, and “explained” her view by saying, "Look at who runs all the convenience stores across the country." Even at that time — “within the context” — Myrick was roundly ridiculed for her xenophobia and fear-mongering. "I wasn't off the wall"? Since when?

Myrick says her relatively new position on the House Intelligence Committee has shown her, through intelligence reports, that the threat of a homegrown Islamic jihad is an immediate, huge threat to America that makes her want to yell, “Wake up, America!” That’s great, but one glaring fact stands out: Other members of the Intelligence Committee have seen the same documents Myrick saw, most of them for a longer time than she’s been there, and you don’t see those members jumping up and down, trying to scare the daylights out of the public. Myrick’s freak-out over these scary documents is all too reminiscent of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who, in the build-up to the Iraq war, would cherry-pick specific intelligence reports that matched their inner panic levels,  even if the sources had been discredited (see The One-Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind).

Yes, of course, there are some really angry Muslims in America who’d like to commit terrorist acts, guys like the pathetic Underwear Bomber. There are also some really angry Christians who’d like to commit terrorist acts, such as the abortion-doctor killer, and Austin, Texas’ anti-IRS airplane guy. If you listen to Myrick, however, it’s only Muslims who are interested in killing Americans, never mind Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and the whole goofy militia movement. At least one speaker at last night’s meeting asked Myrick why she’s not as devoted to fighting that type of terrorist. After all, with the obvious, big exception of 9/11, right-wing nut terrorists have a far higher success rate than their Muslim counterparts — at least in the U.S.

Myrick, though, as she has done at various times in her career, is latching onto one specific issue and obsessively flogging it for all it’s worth. She's always riled up or panicky about something. If it’s not teenagers being ruined by heavy metal music, it’s the evil of traffic problems. If it’s not traffic, it's coffeepots talking to her. If it's not Mr. Coffee coming to life, it’s illegal immigrants wrecking American culture. And now, she’s jacked to the gills over some intelligence reports (which, it’s widely known, are very often all over the map in terms of believability — or has no one told her that yet?).

I give Charlotte area Muslims credit for showing up last night to exchange views with Myrick. After all the baloney she’s been spewing about Islam for years (and we haven’t even gone into her written introduction to a book by a confirmed anti-Muslim bigot who refers to Obama as a “crack-head” and “our Muslim leader”), I give them credit for their patience.

I am not saying that Myrick is cynical or insincere. That’s not part of her makeup, and I’m sure she thinks she was “reaching out” to local Muslims yesterday, and is no doubt dismayed today that some of them “just don’t get it.” Myrick has always been what philosopher Eric Hoffer called a “true believer.” She truly believes all the wacked out stuff she says, and always has. To my mind, that’s one of the best reasons to get her out of Congress.

You may be spending a little time today checking out the big health care summit going on in Washington, and if so, good for you for caring about such a critical issue. But whether you’re watching the D.C. talkathon or not, take a little time out to read “Rising Blue Cross bills stun N.C. families” in today’s paper, picked up from Raleigh’s News & Observer. Unless you’re a right-wing zealot, or simply don’t give a rip about anyone else (often the same thing), you have to conclude that the hard slog of passing real, fundamental health care reform has to keep going forward.

The N&O story, by Alan Wolf, reports on Blue Cross Blue Shield raising premiums for a healthy 17-year-old Durham girl more than 50 percent. Why? Because she has two pre-existing conditions: 1. She’s female; and 2. She turned 17.

No one knows what the result of the health care debate in D.C. will be, but any final law should at least include regulations that would make the kind of predatory gouging that the 17-year-old’s family is going through a thing of the past. And, better yet, make it a crime. Two days ago, Robert Reich, former labor secretary for Clinton and present-day professor and writer, called for the elimination of health insurance companies’ exemption from anti-trust laws, which would make it easier to control these outlandish premium increases. It’s a well-reasoned and researched article, which you can read here. www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/opinion/24reich.html?hp

I need to follow up on yesterday’s post about Democrats stalling on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Some reactions to the DADT issue are – let’s be generous here — flawed, especially the argument that Obama needs to be sure he has the military honchos on his side before repealing DADT. That’s pure nonsense. In America and other advanced nations, the military answers to civilian authority, not the other way around. It's one of the reasons our system is better than some tinhorn oligarchy like Burma.

In 1948, when Pres. Truman integrated the armed forces, he faced opposition from famous World War 2 general Omar Bradley, who said Truman was wrong and that it wasn’t the business of the military to engage in “social experiments.” Truman, who, unlike Obama, was willing to use the power of the presidency, said he realized one day that “Since I’m the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, I could just deliver an executive order.” Which is what he did. Yep, that’s how the military was integrated: the President told them to do it. Period. No stroking of special interests, no kowtowing to bigots, just straight-ahead decisiveness.

Like we said yesterday, Dick Cheney — Dick Cheney! — is for repealing DADT. How far into la-la land do you have to be to place yourself to the right of *that guy? The fact of the matter today is that untold (literally) numbers of gays and lesbians are currently serving in the military, and, overall, the present generation of soldiers simply isn’t as biased against gays as the most vocal opponents of DADT repeal. In a very real sense, repealing DADT is basically a matter of the government catching up to the country’s changing views. In times like these, let those with archaic, bigoted views have their say, then let them know they need to get out of the way.