Comparing Apples And Oranges On The Mosque Issue

That is what people who claim there are mosques four blocks away from Ground Zero, so what's the big deal with building one near Ground Zero? How far is far enough to suit these Islamaphobic bigots anyway?

That is just apples and oranges - yes, there is a mosque four blocks away from Ground Zero, but it has been there for DECADES. Its site was not chosen specifically because it was close to an area targeted by Islamic extremists. The Masjid Manhattan was not chosen precisely because [art of the landing gear of a jet that had been turned into a WMD fell into it, as was the case for the Park 51 mosque. There is a world of difference between the two. It is disconcerting that people like Alex DiBranco, who wrote the article linked above, or since you've probably not heard of him, Mara Liasson of NPR, who made that argument Monday, 8/30, on Fox News All Stars:

[snip] Right, the critics of the project do have a responsibility to say where in Manhattan it would be OK, because there is a mosque four blocks from ground zero, currently. Would they like that one moved?

If it's just the location, and it's not the fact that a mosque is being built, where would it be OK? On Staten Island, the upper west side? Where would it be OK? Because there have been other anti-mosque demonstrations elsewhere around the country that are very far from ground zero.

So I think it's important for the people against this to be extremely clear about exactly what they're against.[snip]

Well, gosh, Ms. Liasson, I think people have been EXTREMELY clear about why they do not want this mosque built in that location by this developer and why.

Good grief. There is a serious lack of logic operating there (or rather, not operating). How can these people be so obtuse? Is it intentional, or do they really not see there is a huge difference between the two?

The same goes for Obama and his ridiculous, uh, I mean, "brilliant" statement to the effect if Jews wanted to build a synagogue there, or Christians a church, a Hindu temples, etc., that should be A-Okay. No problem with that at all. Well, for once I agree with him, but not because of the conflation and distortion he is utilizing, but because, yes, those groups should be able to build near Ground Zero if they wish (or perhaps an interfaith center to house them all). Why? Because THEY DID NOT MURDER THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS as a direct result of their faith (distortion that it may be). That's why.

Jews, Christians, Hindis, Buddhists, Wiccans, any other group you can think of, did not pick a location close to where a group affiliated with their religion murdered thousands of people BECAUSE it was close to that site.

And it wasn't their first attack on that site, either, though too many people seem quick to forget that. This was the second time in less than ten years that Muslims attacked the World Trade Towers. Again, they weren't terrorists who happened to be Muslims, but because of their particular belief system, were terrorists because they were Muslims.

Just yesterday, we had two more Muslims from Detroitpicked up in Amsterdam who were conducting a dry run to see if they could get materials on board a US flight. The scary thing is, they were able to do so. There was the "Christmas Day" bomber. The NYC bomber. There are Muslim extremists planning - actively planning - to do us harm.

Of course, that does not mean all Muslims are bad, or out to get our country. We understand that, too. But to continue to deny that there ARE terrorists out there who want to harm the US because of their Muslim faith is the worst kind of "tolerance." That isn't "tolerance," that is stupidity.

So, yes, there are over 100 mosques in New York City. We know this. That's fine. Whatever. And yes, there is one four blocks away that was built decades ago. So? All these folks making that point, or what they think is a point, just need to stop trying to act like its the same thing. It is not.

As I have said before, it is about decency and compassion for those who lost loved ones at Ground Zero, and for the whole country, which may not ever fully heal from that attack on our soil. Conflating this one mosque being built (by a developer with a rap sheet a mile long, I might add) near Ground Zero in a building that had part of the jet land in it has absolutely NOTHING to do with where other mosques are, especially ones that have been there for decades. Nor does it have anything to do with other religious faiths being able to build near Ground Zero.

These are red herrings, obfuscations, the sole purpose of which is to deny the reality of what happened at Ground Zero through the appearance of "tolerance." Maybe Mara Liasson can forget it. Maybe President Obama can forget it. But the majority of Americans cannot, have not, and will not.

"Here's Ya A Sign..."

Actually, here are a number of signs, in fact. Allegedly, these are real signs on Northbound I-5 in Washington State, below Seattle (and I wish I knew who to credit for these). With so much going on right now, there is nothing like a little humor to deal with it all, right (even if some of the words are misspelled)? Enjoy:


















And for some "News You Can Use," there is this tidbit - guess who else owes back taxes (you know, besides Charlie Rangel, and Timmy Geithner before he became the head of the IRS)? That would be the developers of the mosque near Ground Zero:

The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.

Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show. (Emphasis mine.)

El-Gamal's company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.

The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal's lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Oops. So, after all of this brouhaha around this developer building a mosque so close to Ground Zero (for its proximity to that hallowed ground), all of the angst this has caused so many people may very well have been for nothing. Are you kidding me? Sure seems that way since this massive delinquency this could violate their lease.

Um, no one thought to check the tax records before? What a mess, and getting messier by the day.

Oh, and here is another good one from the Dallas News about Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas:

Longtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide's two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers' causes.

The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member's district.

Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so "unknowingly" and would work with the foundation to "rectify the financial situation." [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

As Rev. Jeremiah Wright said, "Americans chickens are coming home to roost..." Amen to that, brother, but I bet this isn't what he meant by it. Still, truth will out, at least sometimes.

Just ask the drivers on Northbound I-5...

New Orleans Today, Five Years After Katrina

New Orleans is in the news this week as we mark the Fifth Anniversary of Katrina, and the devastation wreaked on this city. It is remarkable to see how much has changed, and how much hasn't.

But who could forget the images from the Superdome, both the structure itself, and the refuge it provided for numerous people. Look at it now:



What a remarkable difference between then and now. But there are still major issues that need to be addressed, like transportation and housing:



No doubt, people are still angry in the New Orleans area. How could they not be? They lost so much, homes, pets (one of my best friends adopted a dog who was displaced from the Hurricane Katrina. He worked with an organization in NC to provide shelter for these animals.) People moved away in droves from the New Orleans area, and many have yet to return.

Dr. Dale Archer, a psychiatrist who grew up in Louisiana, talks about the issue of people not yet returning, and other pressing issues facing New Orleans:



New Orleans (and its surrounding environs) are only five years into a twenty year rebuilding plan. They still have quite a ways to go, especially when, as Dr. Archer pointed out, they are also contending with the BP oil spill, along with the rest of the Gulf States. The impact of the BP oil spill cannot be minimized. It was a huge blow on top of the current regrouping underway post-Katrina.

All of that is to say, the people of New Orleans continue to deal with a lot, but they are a resilient people. Those who stayed are working hard to breathe new life into this one-of-a-kind city. They need our continued support, as well, both on a governmental level, and with our tourist dollars. If you can, go visit. And have a beignet for me at Cafe DuMonde.

Go, Saints!

"Who Let The Dogs Out?"

Apparently a GOP district in Minnesota as evidenced by a video created by some knuckle-dragger who thought it would be, gosh, I don't know - funny? membership recruitment? cool? - whatever this webmaster person thought he was doing when he created a video highlighting how much better looking Republican women are than Democratic women. Only he didn't put it that nicely. And yes, he used the song, "Who Let The Dogs Out" in it to describe the Democratic women.

Well, one of the alleged Republican women depicted in the video, supermodel, CEO, and chief designer, Kathy Ireland, took exception to the depiction of women in this video in a BIG way. In this AOL News opinion piece, Ireland spoke out:

There are so many warning signs that negativity is devouring honest political discourse in our country, and one of these recently made me a very unwilling part of it. When misogyny becomes part of victory at any price, our democracy is embarrassed and endangered.

Here's what happened, and here's why I'm angry and why I feel any American of whatever party or gender should be furious too.

Suddenly it was widely reported on the Internet that a GOP political blog in Minnesota had posted a disgusting video that proclaimed Republican women -- candidates and supporters -- are attractive and that their Democratic counterparts are, in the most disturbing and distorted photo presentations in their video, just the opposite. This vulgarity and flat-out misrepresentation of all women identified as Democrats was to the accompaniment of the rock song "Who Let the Dogs Out?" That shows the level of maturity.

The more appropriate question is, "Who in the Minnesota Republican campaign let these people near a computer?" Everything about this sordid business was vile. But the most awful fact is that it is absolutely representative of the tastelessness and negativity that is now the American political landscape.

I had become personally involved in this low point of political conniving because these bloggers identified me by name and photo (in swimwear, of course) as one of the "Republican babes" about whom they were boasting. My assumption is that my open position on the life issue has caused the video makers to place me in a Republican box. I'm too odd-shaped to fit into any neat little box. I vote for integrity, character, leadership and policy, regardless of party label. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Dang - you go, Ms. Ireland! You tell 'em! And did she ever as she continued:

But my fury derives from the way these "leaders," and a bipartisan collection of other political negativists on both sides of the aisle, are debasing our democracy and the essential exercise of our privilege to vote our leaders in or out. Political candidates of every stripe are responsible for holding their supporters and campaign teams to their own ethical standards, or else we have to assume that these excesses (whether their prejudices are misogyny or any other form of ignorance) represent what the candidates stand for. [snip]

Snap!!! You said it (and click here to read the rest). You betcha - this kind of thing is indicative of how a candidate, a politician, sees women. Like when Obama's Chief Speechwriter, Jon Favreau, now his White House Chief speechwriter, had a photo taken of him groping the breast of a Hillary Clinton life-size cutout, which he put on his Facebook page, and was still able to keep his job, it told us EXACTLY what we needed to know about Obama. Not only did he keep someone who clearly had a disrespect for women, but disrespected his future Secretary of State, that said it all. Not that those of us paying attention needed any more proof. We had seen plenty enough misogyny spewed Clinton's way from Obama, his team, and the DNC long before this disturbing incident.

Good for Kathy Ireland for calling this what it is - misogyny. I appreciate her speaking out in no uncertain terms about what this looked like, and felt like, to her. She really nailed it on the head, and was absolutely right to call people to account for this kind of video.

I should add, the Minnesota GOP was none too pleased with this video, as this Atlantic article acknowledges, "Minnesota GOP Not Pleased With Sexist Video":

[snip]The video was released by a Republican Party unit, akin to a county committee, in Senate District 56, and the Minnesota Republican Party is quick to point out that this is NOT their doing. They are, in fact, none too pleased with it.

"It was down before we even knew it was up, and obviously it's wrong and obviously it's inappropriate," Minnesota GOP spokesman Mark Drake said.

"I think some people from the party have been in touch with them," Drake said when asked if the state party has called the Senate District 56 Republicans to scold them about the web ad. "I don't think anyone's pleased that it was up." [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Good for them for making that clear. So did some of the Republican women candidates.

And how about the guy who made the video, Randy Brown? What does he have to say about it? I bet you know what's coming. It was just humor, people.

Um, no. It wasn't humor, and it wasn't funny. Kathy Ireland said it all: it was sexist and misogynistic. Maybe Brown thinks that's funny. I sure as hell do not.

One last note, and this is to John McEnroe, who felt compelled to demonstrate his sexism once again in this NY Post article, "Tennis Loudmouth John McEnroe Says Women Players More Fragile Than Men," please stop talking now. Yes, he said it:

Tantrum-prone tennis bad boy John McEnroe hit a smash shot at the ladies Friday, saying women players aren't tough enough to compete in as many tournaments as men.

"They should be required to be in less events. There should be less events for the women," McEnroe said on a CBS Sports conference call about its coverage of the U.S. Open, which starts Monday in Flushing Meadows.

[snip]

"You shouldn't push them to play more than they're capable of," McEnroe said of the female players.

"It seems it takes an actual meltdown on the court or women quitting the game altogether before they realize there's a need to change the schedule." [snip] (click here to read more.)

Do I even have to mention that former pro player, Mary Carillo, and current tennis announcer with McEnroe, was not amused? Especially since she won the 1977 French Open mixed doubles championship with him. I am sure, beside Carillo, most of the pro women weren't either. I'd love to see him say that to Serena Williams face, wouldn't you?

John, here's a little tip for you - put a tennis ball in it, you sexist pig. Oh, and you have a call - it's from Kathy Ireland.

News You Don't Want To Miss (aka, You Won't Believe This)

There is much in the news about our current economic crisis right now, the mosque Imam Rauf wants to build near Ground Zero (on purpose), and Obama's 274th vacation (okay, not really, but it seems like it).

But I'm not talking about any of that. Nope, I have some interesting little news tidbits for you.

First up, Rep. Maxine Water's attorneys are irritated that she is still being investigated. Yes, they want the Ethics Committee to "Leave Maxine ALOONNNEEE!" They assert that since the formal probe is over, the Ethics Committee should knock it off. But as The Hill article indicates, they aren't the boss of the Ethics Committee:

[snip] Unlike criminal proceedings, however, the ethics committee itself, not a judge, determines whether Waters’s legal arguments are accepted or dismissed. For that reason, it’s unlikely the panel will halt its activities after receiving the letter from Brand and Herman. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So, there's that. Perhaps it didn't occur to them that Rep. Waters might have committed additional ethics violations. Just a thought.

Second up, and you're going to love this, is Ed Schultz, of MSNBO and Air America fame, had himself a little "Mel Gibson" moment, as this NY Post article, "MSNBC's Ed Schultz Goes Bonkers." Just wait until you read why:

MSNBC talk show screamer Ed Schultz had a meltdown in the network's 30 Rock newsroom, shouting at staff, "I'm going to torch this [bleep]ing place."

The hot-tempered anchor of "The Ed Show" lost it during a phone call in the packed studio and slammed down the phone before exploding.

As astonished MSNBC staff members fell silent, Schultz glared around the room and yelled, "[Bleep]ers!"

A witness told us, "Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn't in them. He'd been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom." [snip]

But wait - there's more:

[snip] Our source added, "Schultz was told: 'If you do that again, you are fired.' He broke down crying."

Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC's catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. [snip]
(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Poor Ed - not feeling the love. Just breaks your heart for him that the MSNBO Execs love Keith and Rachel more, doesn't it? Oh yeah, my heart bleeds for him.

Finally, did you know that the other name by which the Tea Party should be known is the KKK? Oh, yes, indeedy. Check out this OBC, I mean, ABC, report:



Did you catch that quote at the end? Apparently, Rev. Fauntroy didn't since he justified his remarks with this explanation:

[snip]Fauntroy attempted to explain the comparison to white supremacists by saying that organizers behind the "Restoring Honor" rally are the same people who cut audio cables from a sound system the night before the historic March on Washington and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Well, that certainly makes it all better: Tea Party = White Supremacists. I mean, c'mon, who could possibly take offense at that connection? Never mind that it is completely false, but hey - you know, that's all he meant by it. No big deal or anything.

Good grief. All because the Tea Party dared to hold a rally around the same time they are being compared to KKK members? I have to say it - Rev, Fauntroy completely missed the message Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was trying to impart. His son said it all - his father "would not want to limit voices." So, why is Rev. Fauntroy attempting to do so with this incendiary speech? That's what I would like to know.

I am sure there are more stories out there that we may have missed. Let's have them!