Another shooting at a federal building, another bunch of law enforcement folks rushing in front of the cameras to declare there is no evidence of a terror connection.

And they’re right, if your definition of terrorists is limited to Muslims.

Face it. That’s what most Americans picture when you say “terrorist.” Some guy with an Arabic-sounding name who prays five times a day. Richard Reid musta really messed with their heads.

Even when they say “domestic terrorist” they really mean an American who converted to Islam.

See, there is no commonly agreed-upon definition of terrorism. There are, probably, nearly as many definitions of terrorism as there are countries – that way everybody can condemn acts of terrorism in general, even while supporting more specific acts of terrorism that don’t happen to fall within their definition of terrorism, whatever that may be. Just remember — because we mean Muslim when we say terrorist doesn’t mean everybody does.

And to make sure that nobody actually knows precisely what terrorism is — what definitions are actually written down are vague enough that there’s plenty of wiggle room.

Although the United States has several definitions in various places – I’m personally fond of “premeditated, politically-motivated violence against innocents” and the “calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” — here’s the official U.S. definition, as codified in 18 U.S.C. §2331 :

… activities that involve violent … or life-threatening acts … that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and … appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping …

And here is what Edward Peck, one of the dudes who wrote that, said about it:

In 1985, when I was the deputy director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us — this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the deputy director of the working group — they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. […] After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can Google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says — one of the terms, ‘international terrorism,’ means ‘activities that,’ I quote, ‘appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.’ […] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed. And in America today, the beholder sees terrorists as dark skinned people with funny names.

So – Maj. Nidal Hasan? Terrorist. Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab? Terrorist. Zacarias Moussaoui? Terrorist. Khalid Sheikh Muhammed? Ramzi Binalshibh? Ramzi Yousef? Omar Khadr? Ayman al-Zawahiri? John Allen Muhammed? Terrorists, all. Jose Padilla? Er, foreign-sounding name (check), brown skin (check) – Terrorist! Barack Hussein Obama? Um, can I get back to you on that?

On the other hand — Jim David Atkisson? Crazy loner who thought liberals were the root of all evil so he opened fire on a Unitarian Church. James Von Brunn? Crazy white supremacist loner who opened fire in the Holocaust Museum. Scott Roeder? Crazy anti-abortion loner who shot Dr. George Tiller to death at his church. Michael Griffin? Crazy anti-abortion loner who killed Dr. David Gunn. Robert Poplawski? Crazy loner who was convinced President Obama was going to take his guns so he killed four police officers. Eric Robert Rudolf? Crazy loner who bombed a park during the Olympics, a gay bar and a women’s health clinic and then hid in the North Carolina mountains for years. Tim McVeigh? Crazy loner who blew up the federal building in OKC because he didn’t like the Democratic government. Warren “Gator” Taylor? Crazy loner who thought Obama was going to take his guns AND tax him to death, so he held a bunch of people hostage in a Virginia post office. Johnny Wicks? Crazy loner pissed off at the federal government about his Social Security claim so he opened fire at the Las Vegas federal courthouse. Glenn Beck? Crazy commentator who urges crazy loners to act on their crazy thoughts.

And some of you were surprised when the right went absolutely spastic over the Department of Homeland Security’s report about right wing extremism.

But in this country, white guys who terrorize people are revered on the right as patriots. At least in private. In public, they’re crazy loners, even when they have connections to right wing extremist groups out the wazoo. Convenient, isn’t it?

And in between terrorist attacks, they’ll drop little hints, just so we don’t forget. Sen. Jim Demented using health care reform to bring down Obama. Dozens of political leaders on the right calling Obama a traitor. Hanging him in effigy (and don’t even start about how hanging politicians in effigy is a time-honored tradition. It is. Outside the United States. Inside, hanging people in effigy is called lynching and is generally done without the effigy). Hundreds of “Death to (insert Democratic leader’s name here)” messages on dozens of message boards – some attached to “legitimate” news organizations. Carrying guns to political rallies.

Hell, even a conservative commenter here who’s been fairly benign left a veiled reference to Thomas Jefferson’s 1787 letter to William Smith in which the future president noted that “the tree of liberty” from time to time must be watered “with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Jefferson, at the time, was worried that the fledgling republic – he was ambassador to France at the time, mind you – was overreacting to a five month uprising between poor farmers, who felt they bore too much debt and taxes, and the “ruling elite,” who thought the rebels were messing with the rights of property owners. Guess who won? In a sense, it was the beginning of the Republican Party form of government. Said James Madison,

“Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”

And that’s true. In this case, it was poor farmers who were the majority, trying to impose their will on the minority rich folk. The right would have you believe the same is true today – the “patriots” being the tea-baggers and others fighting against the elite Obama government. Really? Maybe they should read a little more of Jefferson’s letter to Smith.

Jefferson, actually, agreed with the rich folk – also known as “landowners” — largely because he was one. He just happened to think the government needed to be jostled a little bit every now and then so it would remember that the people it professes to govern are not sheep.

After complaining that Europe, 11 years after independence, still thinks the young United States of America is a state of anarchy, Jefferson says,

Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.

The “Convention” Jefferson cites was the Constitutional Convention. After the “single instance of Massachusetts,” current and former government officials – including George Washington – rushed to insist on provisions that would strengthen the national government – particularly the executive branch – “to keep the hen-yard in order.” A little like the Patriot Act, actually.

And a little like today, where one dumbass idiot of a wannabe terrorist has us all a-twitter again, flapping our arms about and crying to the heavens about the evil brown men who worship a different god and have funny sounding names.

Meanwhile, other terrorists, much closer to home, go unnoticed. And Jefferson’s remedy – “to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them” – won’t work, because they’ve been living and breathing lies for so long now that they can’t believe the facts.

And for the record – I don’t agree with Jefferson on this one. Kinda reminds me of Syria’s definition of terrorism: Killing civilians. Except I’d expand it.

Violence of any kind, perpetrated against anyone, is terrorism.