Multiple news organizations are reporting a breaking story out of the Gulf of Mexico -- yet another oil rig has exploded, 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana. Fortunately, it appears nobody was killed, and the rig is only operating at a drilling depth of 340 feet (in contrast to BP's Deepwater Horizon, which was drilling at a depth of nearly a mile below the surface). No oil is leaking -- yet.
Will we see another idiotic tweet from Sarah Palin? "@newrigexplosion: don't retreat -- reload and blow your wad in2 God's ocean again baby!" One has to wonder how many more times a disaster like this happens before the nation's crack, er, oil addicts realize that maybe it's time to put an end to this unsafe, environmentally unfriendly, and oh-so-20th century means of generating energy.
Readers, what do you think? Just a bit of bad luck, or should this be the last straw in the oil drink?
Last week, some guy with a TV show named Glenn Beck hosted a big rally in Washington DC. It was about "Restoring America" or something, and most of the people in attendance happened to be white Christians. This Glenn Beck character really gets under some people's skin, which makes me want to like him. I've listened to his radio show a few times over the years, and I think it's amusing. Of course, I don't really take him seriously, which makes it easier to enjoy Beck's shtick. It also keeps me from feeling threatened by him. But it's amazing what people take seriously these days.
For example – topless women. Well, obviously we all take topless women very seriously in certain circumstances, but have you ever thought about what's wrong with women exposing their breasts in public? August 22nd was National Go Topless Day, on which we lamented that a woman's right to air her girls out on a hot summer day remains severely restricted throughout the U.S. But it was also a time for celebration. For our story this week, let's have a look at tits. (Not literally.)
Before 9/11 I, like most of my peer group, didn't read much in the way of non-fiction work. Besides some Jello Biafra spoken words and a dabbling with the Green Party (I voted for Nader in 2000)I would venture to say that I was not invested much in politics at all. In my early to mid 20's I was content to use my free time to play Playstation games (many sleepless nights were spent on Final Fantasy 7 and Civilization II) and watch movies. That's not to say I didn't read books. I had a library chock full of Dragonlance, Star Wars, biographies about rock bands, and (then) WWF books. I was steeped in my own little world of fantasy and so long as I could pay my bills and see a concert or three during the week, I thought life was good.
My father and I have often talked about what the meaning of 9/11 was and how it affected us as well as the rest of the country. He wasn't thrilled about it and he was sad so many people died but this is also the same guy that signed up to go to Vietnam just to see what war was all about (and yet somehow managed to end up S. Korea instead). Needless to say he wasn't quite moved to anger like many people around him, including myself were. For him, it was a terrible day and more people would probably die because of it...and that was the extent of his reaction. Me it changed completely. I turned off the car CD player and turned on 1010 Wins for months before another one of my buddies hipped me to AM conservative talk radio. I turned off most of the crap I was watching and started watching Fox News (easy does it, I didn't know then what I know now). Over a period of a few months I got rid of my fiction books and stopped playing video games altogether. Instead I spent most of my alone, leisure time trying to figure out why terrorists attacked New York City.
That was almost 9 years ago. Since then I've made it my business to try and finish a non-fiction book every week to at least 2 a month. What started out as a way for me to deal with my own anxiety over 9/11 evolved in to a labor of love. I began with a lot of the pop conservative lore (Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham, etc.) and when that failed to keep my interest I dug deeper (though I still dig Ann Coulter books for kicks). I spent hours on Amazon.com looking for books about all sorts of subjects beyond politics and the "War on Terror." I also began to dig through my father's rather substantial library of non-fiction books. Over the last near decade I've read books about the sociology of religion to the history and psychology of food to all manner of American history to books about economics and business. The local bookstore became my church.
Much to nobody's surprise, Ken Mehlman, (Former RNC Chair and Bush campaign manager) came out of the closet this week. It would be an easy throw-away column to rip him for utilizing the "make a big deal about gay marriage strategy" to get Bush reelected, and then do nothing about it after the election.
What is irksome about the issue of Gay Rights is that people generally aren't for them unless it affects them personally. Do we really think Dick Cheney would have been a defender of gay rights if his child wasn't gay? I'm guessing no. But I'll give Dick a little credit as some gay people are rejected by their families completely.
The more we are exposed to minorities whether they are gay or Muslim, the less likely we are to want to discriminate them. Most of us know a gay person or have a gay family member. Could we really look at a gay co-worker and say, "I don't think you should have the right to get married."
For some reason the Democratic Party is too scared to come out of the closet and support gay marriage. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all were against gay marriage. Now that these guys aren't president or running for president, magically, they support gay marriage! One of the issues the "Professional Left" has with Obama is his gay rights record.
Obama states he is against gay marriage. He can't give a legitimate reason why. He's just against it. I believe he is too chickenshit to come out for gay marriage because I'm 99% sure Obama doesn't care if gays get married. But unlike Mr. Bush who would occasionally take on an issue that hurt him in the polls such as stem cell research, being nice to Mexicans, and privatizing social security, Obama is unable to do so. The man that was going to bring hope and change to America can't even let gays in the military.
This is why the Professional Left is upset. They'll turn their cheek on gun control, watered down health care, and Afghanistan, but Civil Rights tend to unite and excite them the way abortion excites the Right. I don't know what it is going to take to get Obama to support gay rights other than his children coming out of the closet or him losing in 2012. But if one of those two things or both things happen, mark my words, he'll be the biggest supporter of gay rights and gay marriage.
So the list of potential participants is growing and I will start contacting participants soon. This weeks edition of FoF features statements that I was thinking of doing full columns on but either chose not to or didn't have time to write. It also has some of the 411 Politics Zone greatest hits: Mosques, the economy, Middle East Peace...all the topics that cause the comment board to explode with raucous debate.
Disclaimer: The following Fact or Fiction statements are not necessarily my opinion but rather statements made (mostly) in the affirmative so you could clearly answer them: Fact or Fiction. I did my best to make this as even handed and neutral as possible. In addition, I provided video's for supplementary information in case some readers are not familiar with the topics at hand. LET'S DO IT!
If you're like me – and who isn't now and again – you haven't thought much about the moral implications of embryonic stem cell research in some time. The issue of embryonic stem cell research is a relic of Pre-9/11 America, and like former California Congressman Gary Condit, it's quaint to think how it once captured our imagination. Then-President George W. Bush's decision to limit embryonic stem cell research seemed well-reasoned, thoughtful, and nuanced – even to those who disagreed with it. It was a heady time for the Republic.
This week, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction that effectively blocks federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and reverses an executive order by now-President Barack Obama. Well, that's an unexpected development, no?
What is worth going to nuclear war over? That used to be a question that only the US and the Soviet Union had to answer. They were the lone superpowers with nuclear weapons in what was once a bi-polar world in the wake of World War II. However, 65 years have passed and in that time the world has become a much different place. Despite "winning" the Cold War, the US has found itself not the undisputed leader of a single pole world but rather one of many poles in the new multi-polar world. Between those on the left that wanted equally shared power throughout the world with no one nation leading the pack and those on the right that wanted unfettered free trade and globalization, both have gotten their wish. The United States as a superpower, both militarily and financially is an artifact of the 20th Century. We are now part of a one-world-nation, whether we like it or not.
And clearly we as a country are not ready for the repercussions of global singularity. Since the 2008 economic correction I've seen countless promises of a return to pre-meltdown financial status and manufacturing superiority. I've seen the average American cry out for a solution to "fix" the economy. Countless entertainers on the radio clamor for, "tax cuts to stimulate the economy" while the current presidential administration leverages the country to the hilt in order to "create jobs" for the working class. There's this ever-fleeting degree of hope that somehow America will return to the boom years of the 1950's and we'll resume our role as the financial leader of the modern world. That's the rub right there; the world has changed considerably since the end of World War II. The very nature of free trade, global markets, interconnected economies and nuclear proliferation means we are not alone in the world any longer. At best, we're a large state in a global country and our neighbors are China, India, Russia, Brazil and the European Union.
It is this interconnectedness that makes the recent news about Iran firing up its Bushehr Nuclear Plant so poignant. The Iranians have tried to get the Bushehr facility built and running since 1974 when they first contracted with the German company Siemens. The plant was only partially built when it was bombed by Iraq during the their war in the 80's. They've had deals with Spain and Argentina as well as a host of other countries but all of those deals were cancelled due to U.S. pressure. Eventually Russia stepped into the picture to finish building the plant but that was in 1995. In addition to this project taking an almost prohibitively long time to finish, Iran has also had to contend with years of sanctions as well as threats by the Israeli's that Iranian nuclear power plants would be bombed if they ever became operational. Lastly, for years the U.S. policy has been that it is in the best interest of the world to prevent Iran from acquiring any and all nuclear equipment, technologies, and know-how, including those necessary for the peaceful use of nuclear energy in an effort to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. But despite the tough talk of the Bush years and the soft diplomacy of the Obama administration, on August 21, 2010 Iran began the process of firing up the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant.
After 7 and a half years, the last remaining combat troops have left Iraq to the Iraqi's save some 50,000 troops that are there to continue training the Iraqi army and help with nation building efforts. There are reports in the media of apprehension on the part of the Iraqi citizens that it is still too soon for the US military to leave Iraq as there is turmoil in the government with opposing sides unable to establish solid leadership.
In addition, there is still a great degree of violence on the ground. The LA Times reports, "A rash of assassinations of judges, traffic policemen, senior civil servants and members of the Iraqi security forces has stirred fear that insurgents are more ubiquitous than had been thought. A suicide bombing Tuesday in Baghdad targeting army recruits, in which 63 people died, called into question the Iraqi security forces' ability to take care of its own, let alone the safety of civilians."
As I'm sure you're aware, dear readers, there's been a bit of hoopla over a plan to build some kind of Islamic cultural center in New York. The proposed site is within walking distance of Ground Zero, and that pegs some people's Outrage Meter. Although the issue has been bandied about the MSM for quite some time, last week many people's Outrage Meters hit "Apoplectic" when President Barack Obama weighed in with his non-opinion on the subject. During a Muslim holiday dinner at the White House, Obama kinda sorta said he was cool with a mosque near Ground Zero. Well, what would you expect from a guy whose middle name is Hussein?
Not surprisingly, Obama is taking all sorts of crap from talk radio and "values voters" over his non-denunciation of Islam. During a slow news cycle, it seems nearly everyone has taken the time to comment on this Ground Zero mosque business. Well, I'd hate to be the only idiot in America who hadn't expressed an opinion on a trendy controversy that in no way affects me. I'll never be the only idiot.
California's gay marriage roller coaster continues.
Without explanation, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order late Monday afternoon prohibiting the state of California from issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians while the supporters of Proposition 8 pursue an appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's recent decision declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional. Walker ruled that Prop. 8 unfairly discriminated against gays and lesbians in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution.
Prop. 8, which was heavily funded by the Mormon Church and approved by a 52% of California voters in November 2008, inserted into the California constitution a requirement that marriage be only between a man and a woman. Two gay and lesbian couples proceeded to sue California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown in federal court, and won their case on August 4 of this year. Supporters of Prop. 8 appealed immediately.
Nonetheless, Judge Walker had ordered gay marriages to resume on August 18 despite the appeal, but this order from the 9th Circuit overrules Walker and most likely prohibits gay marriages until December at the very earliest.
The 9th Circuit panel of three judges (two Clinton and one Reagan appointee) also ordered an expedited appeal process, requiring the supporters and opponents of Prop. 8 to file papers outlining their respective positions in September and October. The order also directed the supporters of Prop. 8 to explain why their appeal should not be dismissed, given the fact that their co-defendants Schwarzenegger and Brown declined to defend Prop. 8 in court, or join the Prop. 8 supporters in appealing Walker's August 4 decision. This left the supporters of Prop. 8 as the sole defendants to the lawsuit who are fighting on by pursuing the appeal. Legal experts have speculated that Prop. 8's supporters are hanging by a legal thread because they will have trouble demonstrating they would suffer any harm if gay marriage resumes, since the state of California, through Schwarzenegger and Brown, refuse to defend Prop. 8 in court because they believe it is unconstitutional. (In the original district court proceeding, Judge Walker allowed the group which put Prop. 8 on the ballot to join the lawsuit to defend it instead.)
Readers, what do you think the 9th Circuit is up to? Why did their order not contain any elaboration as to why gay marriage should not be permitted while the appeal proceeds? And why do you think they have ordered the appeal to be accelerated? Savvy readers will note that oral arguments are not scheduled until December -- after the 2010 mid-term elections.
According to the USA Today, Federal government jobs have increased pay over 33% faster than the rate of inflation. In addition, when accounting for similar jobs, federal workers make 20% more than the private sector.
Not only was there a housing bubble and before that a dot-com bubble, but also there appears to have been a government job bubble where government workers at the local, state and federal level made more than they should have. With the economy so strong and unemployment so low, government workers were able to land sweetheart deals. The problem is now that the economy is bad, government is stuck with all of these previous deals it had made when it could afford to. So what is to be done?
Obama is actually doing something about this by freezing pay hikes to political appointees and by only allowing salaries to climb 1.4% next year which is the smallest increase in a decade, (Inflation is usually around 2-3%).
On a state level, Andrew Cuomo, running for Governor of New York is promising to freeze state pay when the contract is up in April of 2011. Because there are too many government workers Cuomo is proposing to eliminate 20% of state agencies, authorities and commissions. To address the pension concerns I highlighted in my last column, he will create a new tier where you cannot pad your salary with overtime 3 years before retirement. Because the cost of health benefits and pensions has gone from 1.3 billion in 1998 to 6.2 billion in 2013. In order to prevent big government from getting bigger he is proposing a property tax cap at the rate of inflation and a state spending cap. This means he will be the first democratic nominee that I can remember to not receive the endorsement of the teacher's union. (This is probably a good thing).
Because many states are struggling with their own deficits, Congress recently passed a bill to provide 26 billion dollars to save teaching and police jobs. Yes, it will save jobs and I support that but the money came with no strings attached. The money should have been made available if states began to downsize or find ways to reduce their spending so they are not dependent of federal monies so much. Obama has done a nice job with giving extra educational dollars for states that open more charter schools and reform tenure, he could have asked the states to make similar concessions.
I stated in my last column that a lot Democrats will use our broke government as a reason to let the Bush tax cuts expire. While I support the expiration, it is foolish to believe that 3% on the rich will provide trillions of dollars on a state and federal level. Democrats need to stop pretending that the Bush tax cuts are going to solve all revenue problems. It will help but the Democrats must take on government bureaucracy, pensions, and unions. Andrew Cuomo (says) he is willing to do it on a state level, but will anyone do it on a federal level?
The hardest part of Fact or Fiction has been finding participants. However, Fact or Fiction has always been a popular column here on 411 and every zone has their own so I'm bringing back the Political Fact or Fiction. However, I've noticed (from my previous run at this) that most of you would rather participate in the comments area than directly in the column. That being said, what I've done is compose a Comments Only Fact or Fiction. Since readers like to put in their own two cents I figured let's just forgo the process of finding participants and allow all of the readers to fight it out amongst yourselves.
The following Fact or Fiction statements are not necessarily my opinion but rather statements made (mostly) in the affirmative so you could clearly answer them: Fact or Fiction. I did my best to make this as even handed and neutral as possible. In addition, I provided video's for supplementary information in case some readers are not familiar with the topics at hand.
I'm not blessed with children myself, but my understanding is that the parental bond is incredibly strong. When it comes to the reaches of government power, the public must ensure the ability to separate a parent from his/her children is exercised with extreme caution. You may recall the 2008 story of the fundamentalist Mormon cult that had its 126 children put in state custody after sexual assault allegations against, well, someone. Although public officials were well-intended, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest authorities may have overreacted by detaining everyone over non-specific abuse allegations.
Not many people were sympathetic to the fundamentalist Mormons, since they were pretty creepy bastards – and a few of them were indeed subsequently convicted of sexual assault. But the vast majority of them hadn't broken any laws. Still, it's hard to raise much public outrage when you espouse unpopular opinions. For example, last week a New Jersey appellate court ruled to continue withholding custody of three children from a couple of neo-Nazis. As with the Mormon case, this New Jersey Nazi situation begs the question – at what point do unpopular opinions become reason to forcibly separate children from their parents?
Having completed my series on the Texas GOP party platform, it's time to look at what the other side of the aisle wants stands for. Like the previous series, I will directly reference points from the platform followed by my own take. As before, I encourage you to do the same. Copy and paste either their point or my take on it, then use it to make a point of your own. Unfortunately, very few people did so during the GOP series, instead opting to attack the other major party because they couldn't defend what their own side wants. Progressives, if you believe you're better than that, this will be a chance to show it. Can you defend your party's objectives on their own merits, or will you descend into a rant against Bush/Cheney? Know that I will make no attempt to draw symmetry issue by issue with the previous series. Each party wrote a platform based on its own perception of priorities, and my analysis will flow from that. Also, I am using California because it is roughly the equivalent of Texas in terms of how far it leans to one political side, as well as its size having huge implications for the majority party there. The official California Democratic Party Platform for 2010 can be found here. The actual material is only 17 pages, so I encourage you all to read it through. I will go issue by issue as the platform is laid out.
This is a classic battle of sinners versus saints, but which is which? The story is that Pastor Bill Dunfee of the New Beginnings Ministries church and some of his flock have protested in front of Tommy George's Fox Hole Strip Club every weekend for the last four years. They stand right in the way of his establishment with signs, video cameras and bullhorns in hand. They videotape customers' license plates and post them online, and they try to save the souls of anyone who comes and goes.
In addition to their fears that these alleged sinners are going to Hell, Dunfee insists that the club is acting outside the boundaries of the law by being open to 2 or 3 a.m. instead of closing at midnight like it is supposed to. Coshocton County Prosecutor Bob Batchelor said only that he, the sheriff and the city prosecutor are "aware of the situation."
Not willing to take this lying down, George sued the church in federal court several years ago, claiming a violation of his constitutional rights, but he lost. Then he got a better idea.
One thing that disgusts me with both political parties in New York State is the pension system. Some public workers can earn more in pension than in base salary. Public workers will often work exorbitant overtime their last three years to pad their salary for a pension. Prison guards can make over 100,000 in overtime mixed with base pay. I admit it, I'm envious. I'm grateful that my private sector job gives me back its profits in a retirement account which has averaged a little over two-thousand the last couple years. I would love to net 60% of my base pay to do nothing but that would bankrupt my company. However, it is a little more difficult to bankrupt state government due to all the fees and taxes they can raise.
A New York Daily News article recently published that for every dollar the police put into the pension, taxpayers put in nine dollars. The article also went on to say that New York City's pension and health care costs will double by 2016 to 12 billion.
With the stimulus bill, a lot of states were temporarily bailed out but now states are going to have to find money elsewhere in the future and the future is bleak. Without major changes states may soon have to declare bankruptcy. Recently, GM declared bankruptcy because it was paying too much in health plans and retirement costs. This caused GM to lay off thousands of workers.
This is one reason why unemployment is at 9.5%. Instead of hiring more teachers, school districts have to lay off the young teachers so it can pay the salaries of older teachers and retirement costs. I spoke to a teacher the other day and she told me that she only has to pay retirement the first ten years. This has to change.
With Social Security taking away 12% of our checks, there is no reason to have such excessive pensions in government. And with unemployment at 9.5%, I'm sure there are plenty of talented people willing to work in the government without a Cadillac pension plan.
I'm calling out unions to put their country and younger people ahead of their own self interest. This is going to have to take the work of both parties because in New York both parties have ruined the state. There is a reason former Republican Governor George Pataki never ran for president because he was as union loving as Mario Cuomo and his record would have been exposed. The Democrats have controlled the Assembly for decades and the Republicans until 2 years ago controlled the State Senate for decades. Both parties were paid off by the unions and there is very little difference between the parties. This is where the Tea Party is needed.
But the media wants to frame the Tea Party as a national movement because the media is national and a national story sells better. I'll admit I rarely write about anything local because maybe my readers could care less about what is going on in New York but maybe this is happening in your state as well. Most tea partiers or sympathizers that I know aren't as worried about Obamacare as they are about their local sales taxes, property taxes, driving fees, state income taxes, cigarette taxes, (All of which seem to go up every year).
I don't mind paying federal taxes. In the past seven years, my federal taxes have decreased. However, sales taxes are up to 8.75%, property taxes have gone up $500, fees for driving related activities have doubled. Yet, all you are going to read and hear about is whether or not the Bush tax cuts should expire. And no offense to my dear readers but I doubt the majority of you make enough money to have it impact your life. It certainly doesn't impact mine. What has impacted my life and my future is the politicians and union leaders that have mortgaged my future for their own greed.
It has been said that the heart and soul of the American economy is the small business. To that point it has been argued that excessive taxation, fees and regulations have provided barriers to the creation and growth of small business. The mantra from conservative radio and many business periodicals is that if the government would just get out of the way of the small business owner, said business would prosper, create jobs and add to the overall growth of the economy. The mantra of the Right, beginning with Reagan is, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
Now let's look at the other side. "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair is as good as any place to start with regards to government regulations. Sinclair wrote the book to illustrate what he considered to be the horrible conditions of the workplace by focusing on the meatpacking industry. Part of his assertion was that due to the conditions of the plants, the public was being sold tainted meat, which resulted in people getting seriously ill or possibly dying. His answer to this dilemma was that the federal government should enact legislation protecting the public from poisonous food. In 1906 the Meat Inspection Act was passed and with it decades of government regulations enacted to protect American citizens from poisons, discrimination, shoddy architecture, usury, etc.
There is this philosophical dichotomy in politics and economics that centers on how the free market should operate. One side wants no restrictions and if somebody gets killed, discriminated against, or ripped off, well God will provide and the market will respond to said assailant. The other side doesn't accept death, illness, injury, bigotry and flimflam as collateral damage in economic freedom and wants those consequences of bad business practices minimized if possible. In many cases government regulation goes overboard and delivers a knockout blow to common sense. However, in many more cases government regulation has probably saved lives and added to the overall quality of life of most Americans.
Twice a week I post one of these Feedback questions in order to deal with a variety of issues and generate spirited debate here at 411Mania. I may or may not participate depending on the issue or my mood but I do read the comments pretty thoroughly. One of the themes I've noticed is that some feel we do not focus enough on the economy, specifically job creation. I've been giving the issue a lot of thought and while I'm not sure that 1,000 words or so on someones opinion of how to create jobs in America is really worth anyone's time, I do think that maybe there's room here for information on where the jobs are in America. Additionally, I like the concept of, "Think of your social network as your own personal think tank." While many readers here are struggling with employment, others are working or have managed to successfully navigate the recession. Having said that, maybe some of you out there have information to contribute with regards to what industries are hiring, where are the best places in America to find adequate work, how to make the most out of an interview or even just some plain, friendly advice.
To start us off, below is some information (complete with links) I've gathered from a number of recent news stories regarding the job market. It's not comprehensive by any means but it is meant to be a primer for what will hopefully be a positive discussion. You may also feel free to just bitch about the economy if you so desire.
U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) is one hell of a character. On one hand, he's the epitome of the imperious, obstinate, do-gooder Washington politician. At a House Financial Services Committee meeting in 2003, he infamously said government proxies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "fundamentally sound financially." Everything one needs to know about government regulators is embodied in those three words. In his heart of hearts, Rep. Frank seems to sincerely believe more government is always the answer.
On the other hand, Frank is responsible for one of the most heartwarming pieces of federal legislation of 2010. Last week, the Committee—now helmed by Chairman Frank—took a big step toward ending the war on internet wagering. Unlike the wars on terror, poverty, and drugs, it appears the U.S. has devised an exit strategy for this futile conflict.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
I don't mean to sound like a strict constitutionalist but it appears the government can't tell you not to build a place of worship. There are some parts of the constitution that are left to interpretation such as the phrase: "cruel and unusual punishment" because over time our views concerning what is cruel and unusual may change. However, the First Amendment is pretty clear over how involved the government should be in dictating religion. Wouldn't there be outrage if the Catholic Church wasn't allowed to build a church anywhere in America?
Here is another issue that shouldn't be Left v. Right but somehow is. Most Righties think Islam is evil or they are going to take over our country if we don't stop them. They'll use coded phrases like "It is insensitive to the victims." So we can circumvent the constitution because there were victims? How do the victims even feel? Has anyone polled them or would that be insensitive? Actually the only poll I saw on fivethirtyeight.com stated that a majority of people living in Manhattan supported the mosque. This is probably because the Jews are very tolerant, and considering what they have gone through, they should be comended.
Just admit it Righties you don't like Islam. And let me be clear, I don't like Islam either. It's basically Judaism rewritten. Yet, as an American I believe people have the right to practice whatever crazy religion they want. That's what is so great about America. Of course Muslim countries would flip if a cathedral was built next to the "rock" in Mecca. But that is why those countries suck and why I prefer America. Of course they can cover their face here but when our chicks go there, they can't "slut it up." Do we really want to lower the bar? This is why we are better. You know, American Exceptionalism! Something I thought Righties believed in!
If we were to stop the Mosque, we would be behaving like those intolerant Muslim countries. I don't want America to behave like an intolerant Muslim country. And to my fellow Righties keep in mind that Jesus told you to love your enemy, (I know, what a whacked out liberal he was). For those worried about sensitivity, don't go to the Mosque. It is not at Ground Zero. It can be avoided. This is similar to the idea if wrestling offends you then turn the channel.
Once the Mosque is ready and open, my fellow Righties, you can go out and protest Islam right in front. You can try to convert all the Muslims. And I'll be the first to defend your right, because not only does the First Amendment protect you, but it also protects their right to worship. What a beautiful country.
411POLITICS BLOG
