Last night, as I sat watching a TV documentary while breaking news stories scrolled across the screen, I was jolted by one of the headlines - 12 American soldiers had been shot to death by one of their own at Fort Hood, Texas.

The first question that entered my mind, bar none other, was this - Was the killer a Muslim?

A second question immediately followed - If so, was he acting out of hatred toward America that expressed itself in the murder of these American soldiers?

We now know the definitive answer to the first question - Yes.

We have at this early point a tentative answer to the second - Probably yes in the sense that his feelings about America as an entity expressed themselves in his actions against individual Americans.

I would have wished both answers to be different, but I was not surprised that are what they are.

Why is this a "dilemma?

That word signifies a choice between two (or more) conflicting alternatives, wherein either choice is unsatisfying. In deciding how I should feel, or how our society should act in response to Fort Hood, I believe little conflict would exist if either of the following were clearly true.

1. Most American Muslims harbor a smoldering anti-American anger that would find satisfaction in the killing of Americans - not merely the inevitable combat deaths in wars they might oppose (an opposition not limited to Muslims), but the deaths of any Americans who in any sense represented their country. The soldiers who died were killed in a just cause, and their deaths should be celebrated.

2. There are extremist fanatics within all ethnic groups in America. The act of Nidal Hasan might just as easily have been perpetrated by a Christian, a Jew, a black, a white, a man, a woman - no group, certainly not Muslims, is disproportionately inclined to perpetrate or support this type of evil deed.

Here's the problem - both of the above statements are false in my estimation. Like non-Muslims, most Muslims are good people committed to the democratic values of the society we all share. A minority of Muslims are not, and this minority is disproportionately large within the Muslim community compared with Americans in general. Any individual Muslim is unlikely to be a threat to the rest of us, but more likely to be a threat than someone of different ethnicity. If any reader disagrees with my assessment, I will concede that I can't prove it, but I would argue it to be plausible enough for us to pursue its implications. If any reader wishes to argue that the killings at Fort Hood are a justifiable response to grievances, real or imagined, I will choose not to argue the point, and proceed under the assumption that most others will disagree. My dilemma, and perhaps the enormously troubling American dilemma we face from this violent act is - how can we confront, both effectively and with fairness, an American community that does not deserve to be stereotyped, but which poses a threat we can't ignore? Pretending the threat is non-existent won't cause it to disappear. Exaggerating or exploiting it to demonize Muslims in general would not only be unfair, but would aggravate the threat.

Anyone expecting an easy answer beyond that of avoiding extremes is likely to be disappointed. My own sense, however, is that the most effective responses must of necessity come from within the Muslim community rather than be imposed on it from without. Based on history, I'm not terribly optimistic. Minorities in general (religious, national, racial, occupational - e.g., the police), faced with unjustifiable actions by one of their own, tend often to adopt a defensive attitude - they quickly condemn the acts and announce that those acts are unrepresentative of their community as a whole. What I would hope to see, but can't demand, is a response by the current Muslim community that transcends the ritualistic responses of other groups faced in the past with similar disapproval from society. Would it not be a powerful, even transformative moment in group responses, if a leader arose to say the following: "We as a community did not commit this act, but we are responsible for ensuring that it never happens again. For those outside who say it was heinous, we will say it louder than you. It is our good name that is at stake, and we are committed to rooting out any of those among us who would bring this disgrace to us again at any future time. If we fail, we deserve to be judged harshly, but we will not fail"?

Will that happen? I would like to think so, but it would be likely only if American Muslims are better than everybody else, and I'm afraid they're just like the rest of us.

An off-year election was held yesterday in the 23rd Congressional District of New York to replace an incumbent who had left to accept another position. Because of important ramifications for the political scene nationally in the near future, I would like to summarize the results here for those who may have missed them from other sources and were unaware of the election and its outcome.

The 23rd District, in upstate New York, has been a reliable bastion for only one party since the Civil War (although district boundaries have changed over time). That result was not expected to change, because the incumbent was replaced by a well-liked candidate from the same party. This expectation was upended, however, by a movement launched by activists outraged by what they perceived to be a breach of faith by leaders who in their eyes had betrayed core principles for which they had fought. Seeing the moderate stance of the nominee as a rejection of the basic values they had labored hard to promote, they introduced their own candidate into the race. This conflict between mainstream moderation on one hand and a purer form of political consistency attracted national attention. Many prestigious figures spoke out in support of the purists, denounced the original nominee in incendiary terms, and poured millions of dollars into the campaign against her., As a consequence, she faded in the polls, and as the center of gravity shifted further and further toward the purists, she withdrew, leaving the field to her more radical replacement. The polls predicted a victory for this strategy.

The electorate, however, decided otherwise. Rejecting the attempt to push the party they otherwise favored in the direction of greater ideological purity, they handed a victory to the opposition. A district that had been in the hands of one party for more than a century is now represented by the other side.

Many analysts interpreted these results as a rejection of extremism, and as a self destructive act that threatened to marginalize the importance of a major political party and forfeit its opportunity to influence important national policies. The activists themselves, however, disagree. They believe that although their efforts might cost their party seat after seat, and might appear to drive the country in the direction opposite to their wishes, they should extend this same effort to future and larger contests. In their view, if enough of the centrist elements are routed from the scene, the principles the activists espouse will ultimately prevail.

I believe the above is a complete description of the results of yesterday's election in upstate New York. I've attempted to include all the relevant details. I don't think I've left out any item of importance, but if I've overlooked something, I'll try to supply the missing information.