Sunday, August 15, 2010

Dear Mosque-opposition people,

Please gather your checkbooks, credit cards, piggy banks et al., and catch the next plane, train, or automobile to New York City. Once there, you can begin negotiations on your forthcoming purchase of 45-51 Park Place, Lower Manhattan, New York City, United States of America.

Then you can decide what the hell to do with it.

Good luck,

Erin

***

131 comments:

Tony said...

That says it all! Excellent point.

Bill said...

I'm not sure but weren't you, E, one of the peole celebrating the demise of touchdown jesus? We must never be intimidated to the point that we don't express our opinions. Are you saying that if I don't own the property, I can't have an opinion on it? I don't think you mean that.

Erin O'Brien said...

Bill, it is hot and humid and between Dr. Laura and this mosque issue and the morons calling to punish pregnant women and newborns by ripping apart the 14th amendment, I've had enough of the goddamn righties this week.


Now then, if you can't figure out what the hell I've said, you can kiss my ample ass.

VideoDude said...

Yes, it seems the Right is all for the constitution until it gets in the way of there narrow minded ideas. As for Butter Jesus vs. the So called "Ground Zero Mosque". You have a church organization saying they are there to help people through religion and they spend six figures on a garish display. "Hey look at us how religious we are, we have a 3 stroy Jesus in front of our church"! Then you have a religous organization wanting to build a place of worship and community center and they are seen as "evil".

There have been more people killed in the name of religion then any other reason in history...ok...maybe OIL!!!!

Bill said...

E: Well you don't have to address my point and I think I know what you said and I'm sure your animosity is heart felt. I'm guessing kissing your ass is just a figure of speach:)

Bill said...

Videodude. Right! Islam is the religion of peace. Just ask the woman who might have flirted with some man. You know, the one who is missing her nose a ears now. I might be narrow minded. You might be narrow minded. The Dutch film maker, Van Gough, now dead, dared to point out the nasty side of Islam. Go figure. Future news: "Welcom to the Cordova Mosque. This is where 19 Islamic Martyrs slew 3,000 followers of the great Satan"

Bill said...

speech.

Kirk Jusko said...

Perhaps another example of the righties lack of respect for property rights?

Bill said...

Kirk: This isn't about property rights. Remember Waco?

Kirk Jusko said...

Bill, I'm a liberal who believes Janet Reno should have been fired over Waco.

As for the subject at hand, you have a First Amendment right to criticize Islam all you want. Muslims have a First Amendment right to practice their religion all they want, as long as it doesn't violate secular laws that all religions have to adhere to. I don't see that building a mosque, even one a couple of blocks near Ground Zero, violates any of those secular laws.

Dudesworthy said...

I just think... just, who cares really?

On the one hand... considering how much of an outcry there has been over this, why can't the mosque just be built somewhere else? I completely understand that these people have rights and I do respect that, but this is definitely not going to promote reconciliation.

On the other hand... does this mosque really matter that much to the right? They're always angry about something, and this is just the outrage of the week. Like Erin said, there are plenty of millionaires in the Republican party, I'm sure that they could get together and buy the block if they cared that much, but this isn't about that really, this is about creating another cause celebre to win a few votes.

alphadog said...

I'm a Libertarian; I really don't give a fuck what you do as long as your actions don't interfere with my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
Given those parameters I can find no fault with the proposed mosque. However I do find it ironic that many of the same people who are so politically correct, because not to be is insensitive, are supportive of what may be the most offensive placement of any structure in our country.
I wonder if a fertilizer plant adjacent to the AP Murrah Federal Building would be in poor taste.

Bill said...

I agree with alpha. Dudesworthy; it's not the outrage of the week man. Most of the families of 9/11 victims think this is a slap in the face or use whatever analogy you want. It's not just angry conservatives. The country is still center/right and most of the country thinks it's a lousy idea to have a victory mosque so close to the site of the slaughter of these innocents. I don't see why that's so hard to accept or understand. I've said, many times, they have the legal right to build it but why won't they consider another site? The Governer of NY offered to arrange for another site and make them whole. They're doing it because that what Islam does. Builds Mosques on sites that they've conquered. Some on the left are pretty damn naive.

Hank the Tank said...

Note to VideoDude: Exactly how much will the NYC mosque cost to build? Somewhere in the range of 100 million I believe.
And you complain about a statue costing what, 1/300th of that?

VitaVagabonda said...

Whereas the Catholic Church failed to oppose or, in fact, even to comment on the Holocaust in any way; and whereas conservative Protestant "christian" denominations in the U.S. were instrumental in justifying and promoting slavery and combating abolition before and during the American Civil War; and whereas the same conservative Protestants later subverted the American justice system by arguing that interracial marriage was against God's natural law; and whereas the Catholic Church and its allies in the Religious Reich actively campaign today against considering lesbian and gay people as full human beings and have, in fact, directly contributed to the suicides of tens of thousands of young gay and lesbian people and to the denial of basic civil and human rights to lesbian and gay partners; and whereas such christian groups and their leaders, by opposing the right of choice for women, are responsible for the illegal-abortion-related deaths of thousands of women per year throughout the world; and whereas more than 500 centuries of genocide against native peoples in what is now North America and, indeed, throughout the Pacific and the rest of the world are the direct expression of the “christian” plan to dominate the planet and crush all non-christian religions, even if the cost is torture and infanticide, I hereby oppose the building of all churches and places of worship dedicated to the cult of christianity in Manhattan on anywhere on U.S. soil. In specific, I strongly oppose such construction because it constitutes a “slap in the face” to Native Peoples, lesbian/gay people, Holocaust survivors and the descendants of both survivors and victims; and to African-Americans and women.

Erin O'Brien said...

Lots of talk, still no checkbooks. Pretty predictable.

Your fertilizer plant would have been built without question or commentary from the right, alph.

Victory Mosque? That's just jibberish.

And if two blocks isn't far enough away, why don't you boys tell me how far it has to be?

Three blocks?

One mile?

Three miles?

50 miles?

Or do we find these so-called outraged relatives and ask them?

Their kin died 9 years ago. We're supposed to have freedom of religion in this country. This argument is simply part of the newly fashionable American bigotry.

Erin O'Brien said...

And welcome Hank and Vita.

Bill said...

Speaking of check books. There were no checks used to buy the building. Where did tht money come from? Victory mosque is jiberish? If you don't want to talk about facts there really can't be a discussion. Bigotry is defined as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own". I would consider myself bigoted toward some Islamic law. I consider mysel bigoted toward certain groups; let's say like NAMBLA. I guess we all have our intolerance. It should take just nine years for the "so called outraged relative" to get over it?
Talk about intolerant! Look who's making this a political issue! Calling concerened Americans, bigots. I detect a lot of hatred here. Not hatred of Muslims. Hatred of a majority of Americans who think the GZ Mosque is a bad idea. The left is out of touch. Peace out.

Judy said...

Wow Erin O'Brien, lots of heat here this morning...unfortunately, there are good arguments on both sides (not necessarily here)...and no way to please everyone...Just one more sign of the times...

Bill said...

It's not unusual, in any time period, that there are heart felt differeces of opinions. I remember how much hatred there was for Ronald Reagan, for example. I remember the Iranian hostage crisis. Different times, different issues. Americans are naturally concerned when their way of life is threatened. They see the rise of Islam, the use of Sharia law used in some western courts. Is this an unfounded fear? Who knows? Do you know?

Jennifer said...

For some reason it baffles me that people believe building a mosque, well, damn near anywhere is offensive.

How many people have been killed in the name of Christianity? How many Christians have claimed that killing in the name of Jesus doesn't apply to them? How many Christian churches have been erected on sacred land to Native Americans?

Not all Muslims are terrorists. Get a grip. And Erin's right: If you're so outraged about the prospect of mosque being built on PRIVATE land, then make the owners a deal. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Bill said...

I don't know how many Christian chuches have been erected on sacred land to native Americans. I do know that you can't complete a construction if you find indian remains or artifacts. Do you have a number on that Jennifer? So you're saying that a group of Babtists got together, killed an indian tribe and built a Babtist church to mark the site? Examples please!

VideoDude said...

The Right, strict constitutionalists? They want freedon of speech, unless you disagree with them. They want freedon of religion, as long as it is christianity. They want the right to privacy for themselves, only. The Right wants to be free to tell everyone else what to do!

VideoDude said...

That should be "freedom". I was tyoing without my glasses!

Erin O'Brien said...

Now here's a thought ....

Jennifer said...

Bill,

I think you're a troll looking for a reason to spew your personal idiocy on someone else's site. I think your time would be better spent on Yahoo comment boards where so many of the uneducated masses spend their time.

There was a time in our nation's history where artifacts didn't mean shit to the people who were intending to build on chosen sites.

And yes, groups of Christians have wiped out entire tribes and took their land, which was also used to erect places of worship and "civilize" the so-called "heathens." It was called Manifest Destiny, The Indian Removal Act of 1830, and the Americanization of Native Americans.

It took me five minutes to look up those bits of history.

VideoDude said...

Should Christian and Catbholic churches be forbidden from building near the Oklahoma Bombing Site? Timothy McVeigh was a Roamn Catholic and called himself a Christian.

Amy L. Hanna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill said...

Jen: Thanks for your suggestion. Take a few more minutes and google some specific examples. I'm spewing personal idiocy and you're, what?, lecturing on something you had to "look up"? Re-read you're post Jen. Then look up "spew". Stick to your mensa meetings if you don't want to involve yourself with the uneducated masses.

VideoDude said...

The Native Americans called it "The Trail Of Tears".

Erin O'Brien said...

Y'all better go dig what "hallowed ground" actually looks like.

VideoDude said...

Blessed are the souvenir sellers! All hail his worshipfulness the Ronald Of McDonald. Long Live The (Burger) King! lol ;D

Erin O'Brien said...

And call me crazy, but I'm willing to bet many of those bidnesses were built after 911.

How come no public debate about the Gentlemen's Club?

Bill said...

Ronald McDonald did not kill thousands of Americans for religious reasons (spare me the comments about killing thousands of american kids with unhealthy food). Thousands of Americans were'nt slaughtered by lap dances. Give me a break. You are all arguing a totally different point. Check out the background of this Imam. Read his words. Stop changing the subject.

VideoDude said...

And you, Mr. Bill, are arguing a specific against a general. It was the "Radical Moslim" group known as "Al-Queada" who attacked us on 9/11, not the entire Moslim religion. Just like it was a Radical, White Racist, Christian, Terrorist, who attack the Edward R. Murrow building in OK, not the entire christian religion. And there is also that issue of private property.

Anonymous said...

Nothing like the American tradition of venerating "Hallowed Ground."

"Dr.George Tiller was shot through the eye at close range and killed by anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, during worship services at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, where he was serving as an usher and handing out church bulletins."

RJ

Bill said...

The terrorist who bombed the murrow building was not acting in the name of Christ, Christianity, the church he attended (if any). He was a terrorist, found guilty, and put to death. Not the same thing. Like I said. Check out this Imam. It's really common sense. Building this Mosque in this place with this Imam in charge, is a rediculous idea.

Bill said...

The American tradition of venerating "hallowed ground"? What? You just couldn't think of anything to say about the mosque thing? An abortion dr. killed by a murdering nut? wtf rj?

VideoDude said...

So, we should be more afraid of "Radical Moslim terrorist" then "White Racist Christian terrorists". McVeigh was a radical religious terrorist and a follower of the Racist's God Yahweh! You need to do YOUR homework! I don't need to read about the Imam, they own the property, they have the right to build whatever they want there. Just as I have the right not to go there. It is called freedom, friend!

And like Erin said, get out your checkbook Bill, and buy the property from them.

Bill said...

No one said that they don't have the right to build. Most Americans think they should NOT build it there. The President isn't really sure. Yes, i'm more afraid of Islamic terrorists than that huge congregation from McVeigh's church.

Anonymous said...

"Mosque" is worth 17 points in Scrabble and Harry Reid's a pussy.
Now, I've said something.

RJ

Bill said...

NOW you're talking!

sevnetus said...

How come I have to kiss Bill's ass to publish again? Last time I was blatant when I said there's no clue to Islam. It did not go through. It is clear Islam hates, and they should be stomped into the bloody black earth.

swine said...

a long time ago (like when i was 18) it occurred to me that all of this religulous mumbo-jumbo would be silly, if not for the historical atrocities committed in their names.

i am pro construction of this mosque where it's planned--let's get that straight, but the stupidity of religion in general is heavily underscored in this idiotic battle.

by the way, i love seeing people on all sides in effect saying: My God is better than your God, or My God is more legit than your God.

Fucking 5th graders on a playground.

swine said...

oh feck me. Bill, dude, "sacred land" is THE ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY. American Indians claimed this land first.

next: fuck the Christians who are offended, do you realize how many hundreds of Muslims also died in the 9/11 attacks?

next: what in hell are you slamming Islam for when you gotta deal with the fucking Crusades. And that's just to begin with.

let the mosque be built. criticism comes from the people who still haven't figured out what in fuck to put in place of the twin towers, and now we're going on 10 years since the catastrophe.

Bill said...

swine: i wasn't around during the cursades. i recommend some of you geniuses watch the film of the twin towers being attacked, people leaping to their deaths. this happened in the name of islam. it's only 9 years ago. I'm not a member of, and i do not attend any church. as you probably know, there are many promintent muslims speaking out against the building of the mosque. the politics of this are interesting. the president is all tied up in knots and most dems don't have the balls to say what they think.

swine said...

my point was no Christian should bring up the crap that's advocated in radical Islam (Wahhabism and all that shit) without first cogitating on the crap that has been advocated by The Church: in the past or present.

what happened on 9/11 was an abberation. what happened in OK City was an abberation. what has happened historically in the name of ANY God has been an abberation.

see the thread there?

but i seriously doubt we as a human race have the intellect to make those connections and eradicate religion altogether.

and it doesn't much matter anyway...we'll always find some illogical reason to slaughter one another. it could be in the name of Velveeta. heads will roll!

what this planet needs now more than ever is a nice little 4 mile wide comet slamming into the fucking Yucatan, like back in da day.

Bill said...

OKC was not done in the name of god or religion. It was one or two nut cases raging against the gov. these, morally equivalent, arguments are convenient but not pertinent. don't hold your breath for that comet.

swine said...

interesting about OKC...quite often you'll hear "it's my God-given right to be free and own guns. The gov't shouldn't tell me what to do."

i give you that there weren't heavy religious overtones in the OKC bombing (I think McVey had turned atheist by then)...but it goes w/my point that even absent organized religion, we'll find something to slaughter ourselves over (hence my Velveeta comment).

i'm not holding my breath over the comet event; i'm quite sure we'll fuck ourselves into extinction much sooner than that.

all the while extolling the virtues of our great society.

Bill said...

swine: excellent! except that, in the McVeigh case, it was his god given right to own fertilizer. i guess "fucking ourselvess into extinction" is much more enjoyable than other options.

Anonymous said...

Two wars and a $13 trillion debt and what is everyone talking about? A mosque. A fucking community center actually.

Truly the politicians/corporate interests have succeeded in keeping the electorate "doped with religion, sex and TV" as John Lennon said. jemison

Bill said...

RJ: The mosque the subject of E's post. When she writes about the wars we'll jump on that. Right now, on the cable news channels, the big story is about the mother who killed her two little kids. Lots of news about the iraq suicide bombing too. the reason there's not more talk about the two wars is that the dems don't know whether to shit or go blind now that O has the problem and is so confused.

Bill said...

the last post should be directed to anonymous. usually RJ. sorry

VideoDude said...

That is what the Right does. They have no answers, So they give the ignorant masses an issue to "rally" around. "We got trouble, right here in River City." Instead of a pool hall its a Mosque at Ground Zero, that isn't a Mosque and isn't at Ground Zero!

If someone is trying to kill you, what difference does it make whether it is for religious reasons or not. I repeat it was a Radical group called "Al-Queada" who attacked us on 9/11, not the entire Moslim religion.

There were Muslims who were first responders, by the way.

Bill said...

wanna join al qaeda? gotta be a muslim.

swine said...

VideoDude, right. and the worst possible thing to rally around is a flag.

bill, thanks for the exposition on the muslim-Al Qaeda connection. we weren't sure you know. by the by, something tells me you don't understand what VideoDude is trying to say.

and again: hundreds of Muslims died in the 9/11 attack. HUNDREDS! and yes, VideoDude is right: there were Muslim first responders.

Bill, rest assured many other types of groups--religious or not--would like to have your head (and mine) on a ceremonial platter.

Anonymous said...

"the reason there's not more talk about the two wars is that the dems don't know whether to shit or go blind now that O has the problem and is so confused."

Really? Bill, you are so smart. Your intellect is wasted my man. You should be running this country. You got it all figured out.

Once again, you didn't grasp what I was saying. Erin fell for it too. People getting dragged into a discussion of something that doesn't impact them at all at the expense of what is really important. It's fine for the political establishment--it means the real work of dealing with the real problems doesn't have to be addressed. It all becomes entertainment and demagoguery. jemison

Erin O'Brien said...

Jemison, I didn't fall for anything.

I'm well aware of the wars, the economy, the miserable state of Mexico and a host of other troubles. Just because I put up a short post on this topic doesn't mean others aren't on my mind.

That said, I do believe this flash-in-the-pan "controversy" about the Park 51 Mosque is indicative of this country's new-found comfort with bigotry.

Funny, isn't it, that even though there hasn't been a successful attach on the US by a Muslim since 9-11, we hate them more than ever--couldn't have anything to do with having Obama in the WH, could it?

I'm not going to hunt them down now, but there's a growing trend by communities all over the country to try and stop the construction of mosques, largely because they believe as Bill and Sevnetus do.

You want a real issue, Jemison? Try Iran. We go to war with Iran (the impetus of which is being fueled in no small part by the anti-Islam sentiments sweeping the country), and we are SHIT-CANNED.

And there are oh-so-many people dripping from the eyeteeth at the very thought of invading Iran ....

Anonymous said...

Yes you did Erin.

Yeah, Iran's a real bitch. Us bombing it ala Bolton wouldn't help. jemison

Erin O'Brien said...

Well then, by leaving multiple comments on this thread, Jemison, so did you.

Bill said...

swine: I posted a comment earlier that seems to have been eliminated but my question to you was: can you tell me which groups would like to have my head on a platter? Thanks.

E: I don't have a problem with mosques in general. If you want to get into sharia law, which this imam is pushing, then i have a problem. I just think this cordova project could win quite a few friends by agreeing to locate elswhere. and, it's the right thing to do. please to try to paint me as a hater.

Erin O'Brien said...

I have not deleted any comments from this thread. If anyone is having trouble posting, sorry about that.

Dudesworthy said...

Bill: In response to earlier...

I concede: the mosque is not the outrage of the week, its the outrage of the midterms. This is just a painfully obvious attempt by the Reps to drag the political agenda away from the economy/foreign-policy/everything-else-Bush-failed-at and back onto moral issues.

The Republicans aren't a Political Party anymore, they are now a Populist Party that seeks to gain power by emotionally manipulating the electorate instead of offering solutions to the challenges facing the US. American politics is in a deeply unhealthy state right now because there is no sensible opposition party that is able to offer an alternative political vision with any kind of coherence.

swine said...

Hey Bill: for starters, I'd say here's one guy (pointing at self with thumbs).

Nah, just kidding; the answer to that would be: who knows, but I'm sure SOMEONE has a beef with you. And me. Even if it's minutia like: cutting them off, or not signaling while changing lanes.

My point is, it's always easy to identify large, obvious groups such as extremists...but let's not also forget the little nutsos in our own neighborhoods.

that's all.

Amy L. Hanna said...

fusedbl sez (*EDIT):

What Jennifer said - and I mean EVERYTHING. And HOW.
Very nice to *meet you in these hallowed pages, Ms.

Bill said...

Amy: And you didn't even have to take the 5 minutes to look it up! It must be nice to be an elite smart person.

Swine: That's pretty weak and obvious but thanks for validating my point.

Bill said...

Looks as though Governer Patterson may cut a deal to move the Mosque. Now that would be fantastic!

VideoDude said...

Your right, Bill. This Imam worked with an evil empire known as the Bush/Cheney administration in 2003. Working with a clandestine organization known as the FBI. He also traveled with a top Bush/Cheney advisor promoting tolerance around the world. I think you are the one who needs to do his homework. Hint: Every once in a while turn your TV from Fox News and don't just listen to Beck and Limpballs.

I didn't even have to do a Google search. I just watched a day of TV and found out this information.

Bill said...

You'll definitely get the facts from tv! I'm aware of the Imam's connections and innfluence. MSNBC just became aware of that and is touting it this morning. I watch them all. I never watch beck. I'm betting that this mosque will be built somewher else. Probably where some muslims actually live.

swine said...

No Muslims actually live around that area?

In Breaking News: "developers of ground zero mosque reject Patterson's offer to find alternate site."

Bill said...

I'm just guessing about the Muslim population in that area. Probably right though. The developers have supposedly rejected the offer to move, twice now. That was a short lived headline over the weekend too. I don't think they've actually met yet. We'll see.

Bill said...

I love this: Nancy Pelosi is calling for an investigation to find out who's funding the opponents to the GZM! That's worth a LOL!

VideoDude said...

It is a little thing called history, Bill. You just spent several posts lying about this man and this building.

"You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts." That's a historical quote, too.

Bill said...

I hate to get into a pissing contest, videodude, but can you point to a lie I posted?

VideoDude said...

Maybe lie was too strong. However, you insinuated that this Imam was a "radical". When confronted with the facts, he worked with the Bush/Cheney Admin. you dismissed them and continued your banter. The GOP does not want to talk about the real issues (Heathcare, Economy, Jobs) so like Gay Marriage in 2004, they have now found a non issue to rally around.

Bill said...

Thanks for admiting that I didn't lie. I think he's dangerous. He won't talk about hamas. he can't say where the $100million will come from. (he only has $18k right now) Of course it's an opinion. After 9/11 we were looking for "moderate muslims" to try to find some answers.

Healthcare is completed and GOP definitely wants to talk about it. about reversing it. the economy sucks and the GOP talk about it every day. Jobs suck and the GOP talk about it every day. The President isn't talking about these things. Gay marriage is a non issue. CA voters said no. A liberal judge voided the vote. The 9th circuit is delaying things. The President is wishy washy on his comittment to eliminating don't ask don't tell. doesn't want to talk about gay marriage. etc, etc.

Bill said...

Great thread. To summarize; Bill has been told he could kiss someones ass. Bill was told that lots of churches have been built on sites of battles won by the followers of that church. Bill asked for examples. No specific examples were given. Bill was accused of lying about facts. Later the accuser backed off because Bill didn't lie. Bill was told that many organizations would like to kill him. Later, that poster backed off because he couldn't think of one. I give Bill an "A+"

Al the Retired Army Guy said...

My take on all this ....

They have the legal and constitutional right to build on the site.

It doesn't, however, make it smart or right.

If I were with those who aim to build the mosque/community center, I'd look long and hard at this. One of their aims from what I understand is to "build bridges" between muslims and non-muslims. Given the very charged emotions on both sides of the issue, 51 Park is the very LAST place I'd look to build the facility. Do they really thing a lot of non-muslims will go there? If they do, whatever it is they're smoking, I'd like some.

My take is nothing good will come from it, for either side. Better to build elsewhere if they truly wish to bridge the chasm between muslims/non-muslims.

One other thing ... since many here have referenced the Constitution, It thought it would do us all good to have a look at the 1st Amendment ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note that the 1st Amendment talks about the establishment and exercise of religion, not the building of facilities thereto. Now, the question I'd ask is "do Americans need facilities the free practice of their religion?" In most cases I'd argue no. I have personally seen Muslims pray many miles away from a Mosque; I've seen Christians do the same away from a church and Jews worship far from a synagogue. My view is this has less to do with freedom of religion and more to do about making a "statement" if you will. I don't know what that statement is, but it sure isn't about bridge building.

Al
TRAG

swine said...

Al,

"...it doesn't make it...right"

You see the subjectivity in that statement?

Personally I don't give a rat's fuck where anyone builds any of their houses of worship. I'm an atheist and find this whole business of religion beyond laughable, given history in general.

But this is a non issue that has quickly become a GOP/mid term election issue.

Oh and I'd like to go down on record about one issue: I always hear from people: 'you can't complain about anything if you don't vote." I'd like to point out this: I may not want to vote, but I FUCKING PAY MY TAXES. And because of that, I have the right to make as much static as I possibly can.

People who spew that vote cliche need to keep that in mind. Pay taxes? Have a right to talk shit. The end.

Also, voting doesn't really do shit. Because if you're giving me the choice to vote between one parasite belonging to one party, and another parasite w/the same traits belonging to another party...then the American people are fucked into the situation that we find ourselves today.

I laugh at the idiocy of the American voters: oh this party fucked up, let's vote in the other party 'cause they have the answer. Four years later: oh this party fucked up after all, let's vote in the other party 'cause they have the answer. It's an idiotic circle.

Jose Saramago, the Nobel Prize winning Portuguese novelist who just recently died, wrote a book called "Seeing" in which people cast blank ballots for the government. They all vote, but they cast blank ballots. It's a brilliant allegory with brilliant ramifications. You should give that a shot.

TalesNTypos said...

Interesting post Erin. This issue seems to be whipping up a real storm.

Erin O'Brien said...

Hola Al and Tales:

Here's an interesting fact check article on the topic.

Bill said...

and here's and interesting vid of the imam on 60 minutes. i'm sure a lot of people agree with him but this is a big reason why many, most, americans don't want the mosque. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHKV9GbjFko

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

Erin,

Two blocks from ground zero is about 600 feet - I know because I've visited the place, in 2007 when I was considering the French Culinary Institute there for my education. For some, there's a big difference between 600 feet and 12 blocks, as the article notes. My guess is those who lost family/friends at ground zero fall into that camp.

One other thing - those who call the WTC site "hallowed ground" couldn't do so until it was attacked on 911. Prior to it becoming so, it was like most of lower Manhattan - a modern city area, with what one would find in just about any U.S. city, e.g., offices, restaurants, businesses, etc. Once the attacks occurred, I submit that the perspective on the place changed quite a bit in the minds of many. The link showing places near Ground Zero today shouldn't come as a surprise - many were there before 911, and (luckily) many of them are still there today.

As for the Pentagon having an interfaith chapel, big deal. Every chapel in the military caters to all faiths, and has so for many, many years. Protestant/Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu, you name it, military chapels by necessity have to meet the religious needs of all Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines/Coast Guardsmen. Services for different faiths are often scheduled at different times on the same day, for example, using the same facility. Anyone who's using the Pentagon's chapel as an example of a "mosque" near "hallowed ground" or the fact that muslim services are held there is, in my opinion using a convenient but specious argument.

Swine - of course it's subjective (I also used the word "smart"). That's my whole point - the mosque/community center doesn't have to be built there to accomplish its stated purpose (in addition to providing a place of worship, it aims to "educate," "build bridges," etc.). The entire issue is stirring up emotion/passions on both sides, and as I stated, I feel nothing good for either will accrue if the mosque is built there. Again, if I'm Rauf, I'm looking elsewhere to build. My take is it will be a PR nightmare for him (as well as a potential security issue - I'm sure there will be folks prone to doing stupid things none too happy in the event it gets built). Why anyone would willingly bring that on oneself when there are other alternatives is a mystery to me.

Al
TRAG

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

Erin,

Two blocks from ground zero is about 600 feet - I know because I've visited the place, in 2007 when I was considering the French Culinary Institute there for my education. For some, there's a big difference between 600 feet and 12 blocks, as the article notes. My guess is those who lost family/friends at ground zero fall into that camp.

As for the Pentagon having an interfaith chapel, big deal. Every chapel in the military caters to all faiths, and has so for many, many years. Protestant/Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu, you name it, military chapels by necessity have to meet the religious needs of all Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines/Coast Guardsmen. Services for different faiths are often scheduled at different times on the same day, for example, using the same facility. Anyone who's using the Pentagon's chapel as an example of a "mosque" near "hallowed ground" or the fact that muslim services are held there is, in my opinion using a convenient but specious argument.

Swine - of course it's subjective (I also used the word "smart"). That's my whole point - the mosque/community center doesn't have to be built there to accomplish its stated purpose (in addition to providing a place of worship, it aims to "educate," "build bridges," etc.). The entire issue is stirring up emotion/passions on both sides, and as I stated, I feel nothing good for either will accrue if the mosque is built there. Again, if I'm Rauf, I'm looking elsewhere to build. My take is it will be a PR nightmare for him (as well as a potential security issue - I'm sure there will be folks prone to doing stupid things none too happy in the event it gets built). Why anyone would willingly bring that on oneself when there are other alternatives is a mystery to me.

Al
TRAG

Bill said...

A little off topic but a headline, this morning (msnbc) is that 1 of 4 americans think the President is a Muslim. The study shows that most of those people have that opinion based on the Presidents own actions and some because of his middle name. Just thought that was interesting. I definitely do not think he's Muslim.

btw, I agree 100% with Al.

swine said...

Al, ok fine, the word 'smart' is subjective as well. What you don't think is a smart thing (building the thing there) is not seen that way by others. I figure the Imam will have to put up with the shit that will come with having that mosque there (constant protests, perhaps even violence/defacing of property). All in all this is what religion yields. This crap has been going on for millenia. I don't associate myself with any of this nonsense on either of the several sides. If it weren't for the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of religion, all of this would be funny. My God is this, yea but MY God said this, but MY God...yadda yadda.

Anyway, I wonder if anyone's ever pondered Saramago's allegory. Of course one cannot hand in a blank ballot, but I wonder if all eligible voters wrote in their own various candidates, in effect NOT voting for any of the choices given to us. It would certainly make for some good chaos. By the by, the novel "Seeing" is brilliant. And alarming.

Bill said...

swine: I just did a quick wikipedia on "seeing" and earlier was reading an article related to the teaparty movement. Here's the last part of the article by Mark Tapscott:

"Obama is reaching so far to the left, toward political centralization, a top-down command-and-control economy, and a Washington-knows-best regulatory mentality, that he’s becoming a fringe voice alien to most Americans who believe government authority must be decentralized and individuals thereby empowered to act voluntarily from their local communities.
The tea party movement is the heart of the 70 percent of the citizenry who fear Obama has gotten the country seriously off the right track. They want fundamental change and they won’t settle for more Washington, D.C., double-talk, backroom dealing or broken promises.
Tea party activists are the vanguard of a revolutionary renewal of the American founding. And that’s why they inspire such irrational hatred and fear in so many of the precincts of the left."

Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner and proprietor of Tapscott’s Copy Desk blog at www.washingtonexaminer.com

swine said...

Bill, I was a long-time resident of D.C. ('80-2000) so I'm quite familiar with what was once called The Montgomery Journal (among many other incarnations). I can tell you the Examiner is owned by Phil Anschutz, who also owns the conservative Weekly Standard. There are no moderates of any kind on its editorial board...all hard conservatives. I even worked closely with one of them, Michael Barone, during my years in D.C. So...basically that's what I'd expect from an article about the Tea Party in the Examiner. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me by excerpting it.

As you can tell from my comments, I'm quite anti two-party systems.

Bill said...

I'm probably wrong but after reading the breif description or "seeing" I thought there was a similar message to what Tapscott was saying about the goal of the teaparty movement.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

"Al, ok fine, the word 'smart' is subjective as well. What you don't think is a smart thing (building the thing there) is not seen that way by others. I figure the Imam will have to put up with the shit that will come with having that mosque there (constant protests, perhaps even violence/defacing of property). All in all this is what religion yields. This crap has been going on for millenia. I don't associate myself with any of this nonsense on either of the several sides. If it weren't for the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of religion, all of this would be funny. My God is this, yea but MY God said this, but MY God...yadda yadda."

Swine - you're proving my point. Why would anyone want to erect something that polarizing in that particular spot if one of its main purposes is to "build bridges" between Muslims and non-muslims? If Rauf knows (and my take is he certainly has to) that the building will be a lighting rod for controversy, vandalism, potential violence etc., he's certainly not "smart" for building the place there. If "this is what religion yields," as you note, why build it in the first place? Again, to my mind this isn't about freedom of religion. There is something far deeper behind it all IMHO.

And you're right, people view the same thing differently all the time. Most ordinary muslims in this country will probably view the mosque as another house of worship. However, muslim extremists (here and elsewhere) will view it as as victory monument. My guess is as soon as it opens, pictures of it will show up on extremist websites, in newspapers in the Middle East, on Al Jazeera etc. immediately. If I were the bad guys, that's what I'd do - to them it shows that we are weak, etc. ... not tolerant.

Al
TRAG

Anonymous said...

The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do.

That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding. This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect of a tragic moment in our history.

Bill said...

Erin: Is this, 91 post thread, the longest you've had? Was your mind changed in any way after reading all the posts? It's great to have this forum; posting about the mosque, spotted dick, and fels-naptha, at the same time. Thanks

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

Damn ... my dick has spots on it ...

Al
TRAG

P.S. Just kidding, of course, and trying to provide a little levity.

Erin O'Brien said...

Al--wash it with Fels-Naptha.

Bill--I still don't see any checkbooks, which was my whole point of this post.

Snark aside, even comments like anon's regarding this "tragic moment in history" leave me flat. Moment? It was nine years ago. There has been no successful attacks since.

The outrage over the mosque rings completely false to me, and is only significant in that it speaks to a terrifying trend--one you alluded to with the new 'birther' wave. The mosque controversy is just one more bit of evidence that this country is in ever-growing trouble that is growing from within.

Bill said...

Erin: i'm definitely in agreement with you that the "country is in ever-growing trouble that is growng from within." I'm sure, however that we disagree about the reason(s). Thanks.

jonas said...

Y'all understand that the building being proposed is NOT a mosque, right? It's a community center. Like the Jewish and Christian community centers all over NYC. Y'all know that the Pentagon has a Muslim place of worship (technically a mosque, but not a separate building)? No one seemed to complain about that.

Just worth considering.

alphadog said...

Huh. Somebody at the Daily News must have overheard me asking the boys how they were going to play this.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/20/2010-08-20_we_wont_build_it_hardhats_say_no_way_they_will_work_on_wtc_mosque.html

Bill said...

We have to get this to 100 posts.
jonas: regardless of where mosques are currently located, the FACT that they have a legal right to build it, the resonable arugments on both sides; about 65% of the american public and about 75
% of new yorkers oppose it. go figure.

Dudesworthy said...

How does that song go..?

'I got 99 problems but a mosque ain't one?'

Bill said...

Do you think they'd be able to collect $100M to build the mosque if it WASN'T located at ground zero? Nope.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

"Y'all understand that the building being proposed is NOT a mosque, right? It's a community center. Like the Jewish and Christian community centers all over NYC. Y'all know that the Pentagon has a Muslim place of worship (technically a mosque, but not a separate building)? No one seemed to complain about that.

Just worth considering."

Jonas - you're wrong, period.

The Pentagon, like any U.S. military installation, has a chapel. This chapel, like any chapel on any U.S. military installation has to cater to a diverse number of faiths in order to serve the diverse number of folks in the military. It isn't a "muslim place of worship" as you assert. It is a place of worship which, depending on the day (e.g. Friday for Muslim Services; Saturday for Jewish services, Sunday for Christian services) is configured to minister to service members of any number of faiths.

The chapel in the Pentagon is in no way a mosque. I know because I've been there.

Al
TRAG

jonas said...

Al...

You should try to sound less personally offended. It works against your usual rationality.

It s place where Muslims can pray. Not a mosque? Fine. A place of communal worship.

The proposed place in NYC, not a mosque...am I "wrong, period" about that too? Uh no, I'm not.

swine said...

Al, Jonas is right; it's not a "mosque" really, more of a multi-functional center.

But on defending my stance on this: if we can have Christian churches nearby, then we should have "mosques.' As an atheist you understand I see this as silly, but...BUT, if we have silliness one way (Christian churches), we need to have it the other way as well ("mosques" or Muslim centers or whatever, Japanese shinto temples).

So all the Christians and the conservatives or liberals or 70% of Americans giving static about this, then should also give static to all the Christian churches 2 or so blocks away from the site. In other words, what I see here is hypocritical MY GOD deserves to be here but YOUR GOD does not.

You do understand that TO ME this is all bullshit, though, right? But hey, let's make it a fair kind of bullshit. (post 103 baby!)

Bill said...

There IS already a mosque in that building. I guess I wasn't aware of that until last night. isn't this just about the symbolism? A huge ugly building screaming "GO ISLAM!" This place is not going to get built. according to several news sources the building fund has a total of $9,000 in it right now. it will be interesting to see how long this issue remains in the news.

jonas said...

My point with the Pentagon tidbit is that if the federal gov't, nay...the military, makes space for Muslim worship in a place where people were killed, than perhaps the hubub about a community center is misdirected. Legally, there's no reason the center (or, even a mosque) can't be built. As many, many people have said, its really about emotion and respect...is it a good idea to build there? Maybe not. But, I'm pretty sure we don't want the government having ANYTHING to do with regulating something like this.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

"You should try to sound less personally offended. It works against your usual rationality."

I'm not personally offended. Just pointing out that you were wrong when referring to the facility at the Pentagon as a mosque.
Glad you're the only rational one here.

"It s place where Muslims can pray. Not a mosque? Fine. A place of communal worship.

The proposed place in NYC, not a mosque...am I "wrong, period" about that too? Uh no, I'm not."

"Al, Jonas is right; it's not a "mosque" really, more of a multi-functional center."

So, if the proposed facility in NYC is not a mosque, but a place of communal worship or "multi-functional center," can I hold a Catholic Mass there? A Protestant wedding? How about a toga party, complete with beer and and Otis Day and the Nights. What? Never happen? So much for the community center argument.

"So all the Christians and the conservatives or liberals or 70% of Americans giving static about this, then should also give static to all the Christian churches 2 or so blocks away from the site. In other words, what I see here is hypocritical MY GOD deserves to be here but YOUR GOD does not."

What you're forgetting here is that Christians didn't drive 2 airplanes into the WTC - muslims did. This, I suspect is what it driving much of the debate here, amongst many other factors, rightly or wrongly depending on one's point of view.

"My point with the Pentagon tidbit is that if the federal gov't, nay...the military, makes space for Muslim worship in a place where people were killed, than perhaps the hubub about a community center is misdirected."

The space inside the Pentagon for muslim (and Christian, and Jewish, etc.) worship existed well before 911. That it does today shouldn't surprise anyone - again, chapels on military bases (and the Pentagon qualifies as one) are, have been, and always will be (by necessity) multi-denominational. They have to be due to the varied number of religions our service members practice. It would be very impractical to build a mosque, a synagogue and a church in different places on a military base, hence the reason for one facility serving all faiths. To compare that to the proposed Ground Zero (take your pick) community center/mosque/dance hall is a convenient but specious argument.

Al
TRAG

jonas said...

I'm well aware of what's driving the debate Al: Bigotry.
Yes, Muslims flew the planes. And yes, Muslims want a community center. The correlation ends there.

Specious? On the one hand, you have the center of the American military making legal space for Muslim worship. On the other, a massive public outcry against a space that is not meant, as its main purpose, for worship. In both places, Muslims flew planes into building and killed people.

Please, tell me how these are different, and why one reaction (opposition in NYC) makes as much sense as the other (no opposition to Pentagon). Yes, I understand the Pentagon space predates 9/11...but this has everything to do with the changes 9/11 has brought about.

Erin O'Brien said...

I'm well aware of what's driving the debate Al: Bigotry.

Agreed, Jonas, but I have to add: midterm elections.

After all, there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on US soil for nine years. As Bill has pointed out, this project is no where near starting. Construction--if it ever happens--is years away.

The righties have fabricated this issue to stir us into a frenzy. Ironically, the frenzy is just another feather in the cap of the terrorists.

Terrorists.

Love.

Conflict.

Particularly when it's American vs. American.

Gawd we are a bunch of dumb shits.

Further reading.

jonas said...

Agreed.

alphadog said...

"After all, there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on US soil for nine years."
Apparently you buy into the idea that the Fort Hood shootings were perpetrated by a 'deranged individual'. No argument there, he was a deranged individual, but the fact that he was a Muslim and shouting allahu akbar as he was shooting Americans kinda puts him in the terrorist category for me.
We've had over twenty attempted attacks since 9/11. Just because they weren't successful doesn't mean they weren't meant to happen. It was largely due to the GWB admin. policies that these were thwarted; thanks George. Fortunately operator error helped us out in a couple of the most recent attempts.
Stop being so naive. The world is not a particularly nice place, Islam is not a religion of peace, and our Federal Government does not have your best interests at heart.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

"Specious? On the one hand, you have the center of the American military making legal space for Muslim worship. On the other, a massive public outcry against a space that is not meant, as its main purpose, for worship. In both places, Muslims flew planes into building and killed people."

Perhaps you didn't read what I posted. As I said, space, "legal" or otherwise is available to all faiths in every military chapel. It was like that before 911 and it will be like that in the future. It is certainly that way at the "center of the American military."

"Please, tell me how these are different, and why one reaction (opposition in NYC) makes as much sense as the other (no opposition to Pentagon). Yes, I understand the Pentagon space predates 9/11...but this has everything to do with the changes 9/11 has brought about."

I'd be glad to.

First, there isn't a controversial figure behind the facility in the Pentagon (I'm referring to Rauf here). Second, no one in the Pentagon or the U.S. Military that I know of is on record as supporting Sharia law (I did a search on the net and he feels that the Constitution and Sharia are pretty much the same.). Third, Rauf won't, like our State Department has, recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Finally, he believes our policies pre-911 had a lot to do with the attacks, e.g., we are partly to blame for them.

All of these things give (and should give) pause to many opposing the mosque/community center/Cordoba initiative/dance hall near Ground Zero. This is the guy behind the whole thing, and there are too many questions about him based on his public statements to make many people comfortable with an Islamic mosque/community center/Cordoba Initiative/dance hall facility near Ground Zero.

BTW, here's something from the Cordoba Initiative's website ...

"Ramadan 2010: Ramadan begins at sundown on Wednesday, August 11th. Join us for taraweeh prayers at Park51 on Wednesday. Iftar dinners, open to all, begin on August 12th."

Obviously, they're already using it as a mosque, holding prayers there. Also, as that website states, Rauf is the Imam of a mosque 12 blocks from Ground Zero. If there is already a mosque nearby, why do they want to build this facility there? Why don't they just work with NYC and the State of NY (Paterson has already offered State land to them for the mosque/community center/dance hall which they've subsequently refused) to enlarge that mosque to accomplish the stated goals of the CI? Again, there's something more to this than just building a facility.

Al
TRAG

jonas said...

Like I said, I agree that building something there is certainly questionable. And you point to that question in your conclusion: "something more to this...". Well, neither I nor you know that for certain. What is certain is there's a ton of conjecture going on with all this stuff. Has the imam said some things that make people uncomfortable? Sure. Is Sharia law the same as our Constitution? No. However, I'd like to think that there's "more to it" than just that statement. Regardless, being suspicious of a guy isn't exactly a legal, or even moral reason to....do...what, exactly? Gov't has no role here. People can bitch all they want. Maybe it is a terrible idea. There are lots of those that get support everyday, from all kinds of people.

"Worse" case scenario: the place gets built, people even pray there from time to time. Then what? This becomes an HQ for some violent terrorist cell? I'm really asking...what's the worst consequence of a place like this being built?

I'm curious about this logic: "Obviously, they're already using it as a mosque, holding prayers there." I thought just praying somewhere doesn't make it a mosque...otherwise, what's happening in the Pentagon?

Anyway Al, your view on this is clear, and that's fine. It's understandable people don't want the thing built there. My sense is that the reason people (like me) defend it (even as a bad idea) is because of all the other baggage that is not-so-subtly hiding behind this issue. When you have national pundits (and gov't officials) saying stupid shit like "Well, when Saudi Arabia lets us build churches there, then we can talk", the issue has already gotten out of hand. The rationale that "all Muslims are bad" seems to permeate much of the discourse. With that logic I might as well assume all Catholic churches are funneling money to Belfast and Derry to help kill 18yr old British soldiers. Or that any Hindu S.Asian I know is probably secretly plotting to kill Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka.

And as for the imam suggesting US policy may have contributed to the motivations behind th attacks...thats not exactly crazy conspiracy theory. People don't just wake up homicidal one day, regardless of what you may think of their faith.

Bill said...

Whether the Imam means it this way or not, the GZ Mosque will be a moral victory for radical Islam. It's that simple. Of course that's conjecture on my part but there is no way they will collect $100M if the Mosque is moved to a less "important" location. I, for one, don't want to give those bastards a moral victory at the expense of the 9/11 families. That's just me. Erin, I think you're correct that conservatives, the right, are making a big issue out of it but isn't it curious how the left has taken the bait? It's really fun watching them, including the President, try to figure out which way the political winds are blowing. It's clear that they don't stand for anything. They're bringing up freedom of religion and look how they crap on everything Christian. You don't hear one of the lefties being critical of the way Islam treats women or gays. The hypocracy is hilarious.

Erin O'Brien said...

Alph, the more we fear, the more the terrorists win. Hence the term: terrorist.

Some goddamn moron with a propane tank isn't a terrorist. He's a goddamn moron with a crude local bomb.

Remember bomb scares for chrissake? Rmember hijackers back in the 70s? Did we start taking our shoes off to get on an airplaine back then for chrissake? We've turned into a bunch of candy asses.

That underwear guy cost us what? Something like $278 billion for precautionary measures in the 2010 budget. It's stupid.

You can't take down the US by a physical attack, so you take it down economically--by scaring the shit out of it into two sham wars it can't afford. Bin Laden just happened to hit us with a dead shot right to the Achilles heel on Sept. 11. We've been nothing but full of fear since and he's winning, baby.

A guy in a cave--maybe even dead--has got this entire country by the short hairs.

You want to see terrorism come to a screeching halt? Get the US out of the Middle East--all of it. We're only there for oil and to keep pouring $$ into the big bad hungry cold war machine. Don't worry about the oil, baby. The Saudis like our fat American greenbacks too much to stop selling it to us. They like building Dubai. A lot.

The cold war machine, now that's a different story ...

Bill said...

being naive can get plenty of us killed. call it what you want but when thousands of ass holes want to kill americans, i call it terrorism. pan am 103, uss cole, american embassy, kobar towers, 9/11, etc. because we're in the middle east? should we give up israel too? radical islam hates infidels and jews. the more they can kill the better. why don't you believe what they say all the time? reality sucks.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

Erin - call Iraq what you will, but Afghanistan was anything but a "sham." The Taliban harbored, aided and abetted the guys who planned and executed the 911 attacks - we really didn't have much of a choice as to whether we went in. If we hadn't done what we did, Al Qaeda would most likely still have it as a "safe haven" in which it could train terrorists, plan more attacks, etc. One can argue that AQ is using Pakistan as a sanctuary, but they don't have the freedom of action they enjoyed in Afghanistan. Also, I won't argue whether it was a good idea to stay there, but there is no doubt in my mind that it isn't a "sham war" as you assert. We didn't make up a reason for going there - we went there in response to a direct attack on our country by folks who lived in Afghanistan, and were supported by that country's regime at the time. My guess is that any president would have done the same things Bush did at the time, and that includes Obama.

Al
TRAG

Erin O'Brien said...

Point taken, Al. Too bad Bush turned away from the Afghanistan mission in order to chase those nonexistent WMD in Iraq. But he did, damn near bankrupting the country in the process.

jonas said...

Al, on your last point, you an I are in agreement.

Moreover, I think going into Iraq was, on many important levels, justified. Did our gov't play fast and loose with the truth and their reasons/proof? Yes. But, did a really bad guy go away and did ours and everyone else's oil interests get protected? Yes. Does having those oil interests largely suck? Yes. Are we all responsible for that? More or less. So, given the circumstances, being there needed to happen. How and for how long are entirely different arguments. I know that's oversimplified, but so is blaming GWB for us being there.

Al the Retired Army Guy said...

It is indeed a sign of the Apocalypse when Erin, Jonas and I are in agreement ... ;-)

Al
TRAG

P.S. Post 119, baby!

Al the Retired Army Guy said...

Erin,

As you know, I'm on record as questioning the justification used by George W. Bush to go into Iraq.

As far as nearly bankrupting our country goes, there's plenty of blame to go around. George Bush (or any sitting President, regardless of party) could not do what he did without congressional approval (he had both for Afghanistan and Iraq). If you want to blame Bush, fine. But, to be intellectually honest, you must also affix blame to those in Congress, on both sides of the aisle who approved what Bush proposed/did.

Al
TRAG

Bill said...

Ground Zero Mosque? What Ground Zero Mosque?

The AP sees no evil.

08/19/2010

AP Advisory

AP Standards Center issues staff advisory on covering New York City mosque

Associated Press Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production Tom Kent sent the following note to the staff about covering the New York City mosque story and then discussed the guidance and reaction in a Facebook entry headlined "Behind the News: Describing the proposed NYC mosque."

Aug. 19, 2010

Colleagues,

Here is some guidance on covering the NYC mosque story, with assists from Chad Roedemeier in the NYC bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington:

1. We should continue to avoid the phrase "ground zero mosque" or "mosque at ground zero" on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away.

WE WILL CHANGE OUR SLUG ON THIS STORY LATER TODAY from “BC-Ground Zero Mosque” to “BC-NYC Mosque.”

Bill said...

I just watched a 10 minute debate on this subject on cnn's Fareed Zakaria. The two smart guys were uninformed and simplistic. They should have read this thread.

philbilly said...

"Some goddamn moron with a propane tank isn't a terrorist. He's a goddamn moron with a crude local bomb."

Erin, I immediately thought of a nitwit I saw in Collinhood barbecuing while very drunk last week instead of Times Square.

Nice to see the Independent Party
coming together for 2016.

Meanwhile, Canadian fighter jets have just intercepted two long-range Russian bombers over disputed Artic oil reserves, and the number of women and children sold into sexual slavery wordwide is on the rise.

What was the question?


WV= testoke. This weed any good? Lemme try a testoke.

swine said...

Al, I, too, am in agreement with Erin, Jonas, and you. The Apocalypse has officially arrived. But you know me, I like that. I very much like that.

Bill said...

Way too much agreement here. Erin, please do a blog on bombing iran or somehting.

Bill said...

This may be something we can get some disagreement on:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38673

philbilly said...

Did he just call me whitey?

You bet yer ass I'm whitey, I slather on the SPF 50 and make a beeline for the shade.

Pass the lutefisk.

jonas said...

I'd like to hear more of that interview. I might not hold the same views on all of those very-out-of-context snippets, but there was nothing there that was surprising or really even controversial.

If people want to use "evidence" like that to rail against the guy...they're not doing themselves any favors.

Erin O'Brien said...

Agreed, Jonas.

Bill said...

I agree that there is nothing surprising. Controversial is another matter. Regarding out of context snippets. Watch MSNBC late afternoon sometime. Without out of context snippets there would be no shows. Sad, but that's the state of cable news. I have to admit, though, that Fareed Zakaria, on CNN, does a fantastic job of presenting issues in depth.

jonas said...

Bill,

I'm in the midst of shopping for a "new" (to me) TV...wifey and I have mostly avoided it for 3 yrs. But I know of what you speak. It's the same problem I have with Michael Moore: your argument against the "bad guys" is very much in question when you employ the same manipulation and 1/2 truth tactics to get your message across as "the bad guy." If only media wasn't a money making enterprise...