This made me think of an episode of The West Wing:

This is quoted from:
Search or Browse The West Wing Transcripts -- View or Search transcripts and summaries

The constitution really isn't a catch all.

Granted it sounds like grandstanding, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is 'even more offensive.' Of course, that's just a matter of opinion...or taste.

Another thought...
The one good thing that may come of this is that the blowback may take some of the glitter off of the previous overblown xenophobic hacky sack issue - illegal immigration.

Really, Nancy? You support "looking into" how private citizens are funding themselves to express an opinion about a controversial issue? Yeah that sounds like a good idea lets make the financial backing behind any expressed view point public! That way nobody will ever want to express themselves out of fear of the US govt rooting through their organizations or personal banking account with a fine tooth comb. The 1st amendment was getting a little old anyway, I think its time has passed. At the very least most everyone involved with this cluster fuck seems to think so.

Oh well another chapter of stupid is being written for future generations to scratch their heads over. On the plus side we have about 3 more months of politicians saying and doing incredibly dumb things every time a camera or microphone is around, those votes are important. If it wasn't always based around such serious issues this stuff would be comic gold.

There are investigations of varying degrees, then, aren't there?

I'll take this to mean that this is no one else's business either.

Yes, there are differing degrees of investigations. I'd take an investigation initiated by Congress pretty seriously.

Regardless of the degrees of investigations, this is none of the government's business and hints at intimidation.

Individuals can ask all the questions they want since the first amendment only applies to the government. The people being questioned are also free to ignore the questioner.

She was speaking within the context of the ADL's position.

let's recap, shall we?

first a racist blogger creates a canard about a mosque at ground zero.

that gets picked up by the conservative media apparatus and made into a cause célèbre all for the greater good of the conservative media apparatus which always enjoys higher ratings and bumps in advertising rates from viking international (don't be caught with fiat currency when helter skelter comes! buy gold now!) when a group hate is underway. double plus good, that. always double plus good.

the group hate acquires enough media-momentum that it starts to freak out the moderates and some ultra-rightwing strategists who say to themselves:

wait....where's the advantage of being seen as racists?


and that unleashes a bit of a pushback from the remarkably passive non-conservative media apparatus, including a theatrical suggestion that an investigation might be in order because

maybe

just maybe


there's some conservative astroturf being spread again.

which means of course that conservatives are the victims.
not the people who happen to be muslim around the united states who have had to endure the spectre of yet another round of conservative-driven racism directed their way.

o no.

conservatives are the victims.

unbelievable.

I don't see anything in your above scenario where the government is involved until we get to Nancy Pelosi's comments and the pesky little issue of the first amendment. Granted, the blogger that started this is way off base, but it is his or her constitutional right to speak without threat of congressional investigations.

I don't recall reading anything about Pelosi calling for congressional investigations.

dog: i understand the point and personally will worry about it when there is an actual investigation. at the moment, i think it's theater.

but really, i don't see what the right has to worry about--so what if there is an investigation? it's not like the speech would be the object, so the first amendment complaints are beside the point. it'd be a matter of diverting money, of potential criminal actions at that level. that's not free speech. that's corruption. unless you imagine corruption to be a form of free speech...

In my completely unscientific observation of the coverage of this issue, I think it is beginning to peak and we'll all be moving on soon.

I'm starting to see coverage of staunch conservatives offering more nuanced positions.

For example, Gene Healey of the CATO institute:

Debate Is a Red Herring | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary)

...and even Pat Buchanon on CBS News:

bg- While I've said everything I want to say on the actual mosque already, I would like to make a point with regards to this. If the Speaker of the House says "something needs to be looked in to", by default, "Congress" is calling for an investigation. It doesn't really matter who investigates at that point or if it is publicly funded, it's that Congress said it needed to be looked into. She made the statement in her role as Speaker so the statement cannot be separated from Congress.

Semantics, perhaps, but her purpose was to intimidate. Why the Federal fucking government is even talking about this is beyond me.:shakehead:

:edit:
I take that back, it's not beyond me. This is one more example of the Federal government's desire to be involved in every aspect of American lives. It's one building in one city in one state in our nation. Yet, they can't resist telling those people how they should feel about it and what they should do about it.

^^ exactly. That's why Obama shouldn't have comment and that extend so Mrs. Pelosi. speaking with the position alone can cause people to believe that it's from that position.

there is something between unfortunate and unnervingly bad in the degree to which the ship of state continues to be run by people who seem to watch a whole lot of tv. like a whole lot of it and who calibrate actions and/or statements by what plays there. it gives the impression of an entire government of people in offices watching c-span and game shows. this isn't a new impression, either. but from time to time it seems more present....

I chalk all of this up to the American (human?) penchant to remove enough---if not all---context from something so that it fits within a structure they can adequately target with their fears, anger, or paranoia.

Yes, Pelosi is a powerful politician, yes, she's in Congress. But let's not forget she was talking on the radio in response to another organization's position on the matter.

Jesus...context, people.

Maybe I'm reacting to this differently because I live in a place where politicians aren't considered tyrants by default.

I'll bet they introduced her as "Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi". Jesus knows they did.

Here would be a proper response (for a responsible leader), "As a resident and representative of the state of California, it is inappropriate of me to insert myself into the business of the great state of New York. I'm certain they will find a resolution to this matter without need of my opinion. Next topic?"

Ah... so "Pelosi the Pussyfooter"?

"Way to sidestep the issue, Pelosi. Yet another Democrat fails to show leadership. No wonder no one knows where Dems stand on the issues.... blah blah blah.... "

the stupidity keeps growing...

Achenblog - Are Americans total numbskulls?

That is probably the weakest retort I've seen you make. You haven't seen me say such a thing about any other national figure who has remained silent. It's as if you are arguing a point which was never made.

...or, perhaps, you are so accustomed to your level of government control that it actually seems unreasonable for your federal leaders to remain silent on every private, state matter which exists??

You know, it's okay to agree with me once in a while, no one will tell your teammates. This one is so obvious, it's almost as if you are trying too hard.:)

you know, cimmaron, if the speaker of the house says something in passing on a radio show, that isn't "government control".

just saying.

I wasn't talking about you. Sorry for the confusion.

They don't remain silent. Quite often they're forced to talk about them in official meetings of parliament; you know, where these things usually should be talked about. And they've been known to be flushed out of power when enough people don't like what they're saying, or doing. How does that work down there where you are?

No. I'm flabbergasted at how people are ignoring the context in which Pelosi said what she said.

This.

It's funny how many things the President is expected to stay out of (when his statement was a response to a question, not a totally unsolicited response) while potential 2012 candidates and dozens of other national figures are free to wharrgarble at will.

guys,

I suppose I am hoping that one side or the other would "rise above" this media circus sideshow and publicly STFU. This issue speaks for itself - the correct side of this argument, from every angle, is for the building to be built. Let the crazies swing their signs in Lower Manhattan. Have the personal restraint to let NYC decide without influence.

I won't deny that I feel a bit of glee watching the federal politicians suck on their shoes; concurrently, I mourn the lack of true statesmen in our federal government, regardless of which aisle they slide their heinies into.

:edit:

Just so we all have (some) context, this is what Pelosi said on a local San Francisco radio station:

Prior to that part, she actually was doing a really good job. I'll leave it to my colleagues in NY, blah, blah. If she'd only stopped there...

RB, my only point of disagreement with the article you posted above is this:

Given the generations-long habits of the US Gov't in regards to honesty, I fail to see how this is an unreasonable position to take. I am hard-pressed to recall a single statement, by -any- President or Cabinet member in my lifetime, which was truthful.

No new taxes? Lie.
Ruby Ridge? Lies.
Monica? Lies.
Waco? Lies.
Kosovo? Lies.
No nation-building, humble foreign policy? Lies.
Iraqi WMD? Lies.

And those are just the biggest and most egregious of the lot. Given this, why is it unreasonable to suspect that when a politician speaks, they are lying? The experience of history certainly seems to bear out the truth of the old saw about when a politician's lips are moving.

I agree with you, more than you can possibly know, about the utter idiocy of much of the nonsense that swirls around Mr. Obama. However, the assumption that one is being lied to by one's Government is, as near as I can tell, the only reasonable starting position which remains.

rb-

If someone called me with that polling question, I would have to answer "unknown". Religion is personal and its practice is also personal. There's no way for me to know to whom he prays. I don't really care, either. Balance the budget, and I don't care if you sling chicken blood all over the Lincoln bedroom in ritual sacrifice.

thing is, folks, is that the "confusion" about obama's religion is a direct function of the kind of baiting that we've all watched come to the surface from the right---again---over this non-issue of the fictional "ground zero mosque." that's why i posted it: the effects of this campaign to situate obama as "one of them" appears to have a statistically significant effect. which would mean that conservative media disinformation resonates.

and there is no parallel media apparatus "on the left" so don't even start with that nonsense.

as for the line in the article dunedan bit---i'm not particularly interested in it. you may be right. no doubt there's reasons to treat things most in power say with suspicion to some extent--but that sentence seems a weak consideration of an alternate explanation for the poll results. it's a step or two away from the data logically in an area wherein almost anything can appear correlative. but really, i think the writer is just speculating. so it's good to pull that line out.

rb -

I agree with you. There is no doubt that a fringe of people as bloggers, media, etc. intentionally create a "mystery" in order to group the people they don't like together. This would be an example of the an element in the right doing just that. "We don't like muslims, we don't like Obama. Let's turn Obama into a Muslim. That way, people who don't like muslims won't like Obama, and people who don't like Obama won't like Muslims."

I believe it went from 11% to 18% in 2 and a half years. That's quite a jump. What I don't understand, is that I don't see much media surrounding this issue. Granted, I don't look at extreme right stuff like, World Net something or other. Maybe, that's where it comes from? I can't imagine 1 in 5 Americans read that crap, though. So, where's the source of the rumors? I get all sorts of crazy forwards in my email from both sides, and I don't really get any about his religion. Surely, +7% didn't just decide that without something showing up on the media radar?!

(Of course, I do view this as the same tactic being used against the tea party - turning them all into racists.)

I don't know, in my opinion its pretty weird for the speaker of the house to support looking into the funding behind any of this (she also seems to supports looking into the funding behind the Mosque as well which is in my opinion is just as bad). What could possibly be the purpose behind doing so? What would she hope to find? How would it be used? It seems like it would do nothing more then add fuel to an already raging fire...it might not have been the best idea to put forth.

Anyway it appears she clarified her statement later on and I didn't see it before I made my comments above. Regardless the idea of bringing transparency to the finances behind either side of this issue is ridiculous as its nobodies business. There is nothing illegal about trying to build a Mosque and there is nothing wrong (legally anyway) with protesting it, let everyone involved be. It should work itself out in time, we don't need anybody making it worse by digging up where the money came from in all of this.

Honestly, nowdays if a pollster called me I'd probably say he's a Muslim just for the lulz.

My personal guess is that Nancy Pelosi already has a pretty good idea of who is funding opposition to the Mosque At Ground Zero, assuming that its Rupert Murdoch or someone similar. Therefore, assuming there was any actual thought to her response to the question, I would interpret it as veiled threat to go public with that information. Its one thing to manipulate "conservative Republican GOP" members of the American public, and its another thing to be fairly well known to be manipulating the "conservative Republican GOP" members of the American public, but its an entirely different thing to be blatantly, obviously called out for manipulating the "conservative Republican GOP" members of the American public. Don't turn the sheep into mules.

As far as the public statements from the White House on this topic, I don't see much of a way they could pragmatically do otherwise. The basic premise at the base of this - freedom of religion and speech versus fascist fear-induced decisions complete with pitchforks - is something you can't just ignore if your job is to serve as the nominal figurehead of the American People. I do find it amazing that it seems a strong undercurrent of the "conservative Republican GOP" politicians campaign is essentially "Fuck the poor (i.e. yourselves), fuck the hispanics (i.e. one of the fastest growing sectors of the American public), and fuck the Muslims (i.e. a large percentage of everyone else in the world)" and that it will probably work better than I would anticipate. Americans are some scared-ass motherfuckers these days.

here's an item from the guardian about pamela geller, the racist blogger at the heart of the "ground zero mosque" fiction. check out her political affiliations.

The US blogger on a mission to halt 'Islamic takeover' | World news | The Guardian

just in case you thought referring to this business as fascist was overstating things.
of course, all the neo-fascist groups that geller supports are victims of bad press, not really so bad, not really so...

Here he is "vlogging" from the beach.


There is a lot of crazy packed into that bikini.

really just pathetic. embarrassing and pathetic

I want to hope that this "Ground Zero Mosque" donnybrook is an isolated incident, but I'm not going to invest too much into that.

I don't want to think about it, but what's happening to you, America?

Islamofascist terrorists are winning another victory mere blocks away from your most devastating battlefield.

Swallow your fear and ignorance before it consumes you like fire.

I forgot to include that the guy in the white cap isn't Muslim but is taunted as being so incorrectly.

Yeah, that's how fear and ignorance works.

this is what fascism looks like.

Gotta keep all those dang communists muslims in check.

Seriously. I may not be wise to the ways of the world yet, but when I look at this; I can't help but think this must be how McCarthyism got started.

Oh, no, Hektore. My thoughts go back further than that—back to American internment camps during WWII.

If enough people think they are "at war" with Islam (as opposed to Islamofascism), then how much further do you need to go before you start viewing Muslims as "enemy aliens"?

I guess we can chalk an awful lot of this up to a complete failure to teach accurate history to the masses. You know, as opposed to the hero worship version of history. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the ugly things this country has done has to look at this and think - deja vu.

Americans aren't known for their long memories. Maybe they're still so caught up in 9/11 because "Ground Zero" hasn't been rebuilt yet.

They don't seem to have a problem with Pearl Harbor anymore. Look at all those Sony Playstations.

What I spoke of, above, is not an isolated incident.
It's become viral.

Jette brought up an excellent point.
How do we break through the wall of ignorance & fear?

The current television media machine that many folk continue to rely on for information, is a petri-dish that's been well fertilized, for profit.

It's beyond disgraceful.

for profit and short-term political advantage in a faction fight over control of the far right.

dick army---which is still my favorite name for a national politician ever---has appointed himself "leader" of the teabaggers and is threatening conservatives with hell to pay in the coming mid-terms if they do not tow the teabagger line---pull them out of the water at the appropriate time, presumably.

what concerns me really is a scenario of political paralysis and economic crisis in a context wherein a mobilized neo-fascism is getting media play and--to my horror--some traction.

what seems more likely to happen is that the neo-fascist right is doing itself tremendous damage by exposing its racist underpinnings so obviously. they'd be better off staying vague.

Here is a microcosm of its divisiveness:

Ron Paul and Son Rand Split Over Ground Zero Mosque

[goatfucker]

But...but...but...Ron Paul! Racist Loonytarian Teabagger conservative joke from TEXAS for God's sake! He can't POSSIBLY be supporting the rights of Muslim Americans! He can't POSSIBLY be calling people out on their collectivist bullshit! He just...CAN'T! He's WHITE and CONSERVATIVE!

[/goatfucker]

so let's see if i have this straight, dunedan: post after post to this and other threads about the rise of this new racist meme amongst aspects of the right that connect it to a faction fight---which presuppose **differentiations** amongst the right, which means that **not** everyone is being tarred with the same brush---even as the neo-fascism that's being used to mobilize these people is being criticized---and rightly so, goddamn it....

and you come in with a goofball driveby based on nothing---at all---but projections. in order to---GASP!---play the conservative-as-victim game.

great. well, that totally changes how i view the situation. well played.

If I was trying to change how you see the situation, I'd have given up a long time ago. The entire point of that "drive by," as you put it, was to point out that the Conservative wing of American politics is neither as monolothic, nor as uniform, as many folks would like. It makes it a lot easier to imagine Conservatism as a giant pastiche of racism and revenge fantasies and argue against -that-, but that doesn't make it accurate. -That- was my point.

That and getting a chance to use "Goatfucker" again, since "Teabagger" now seems to be back on the menu around here.

i don't remember anyone saying **all** conservatives are participating in these demonstrations, in these actions---but there's no doubt that **alot** of conservatives ARE participating in it.

but i imagine that those who aren't participating are kinda pissed off. where are they?

Currently, they're mostly trying to tactfully shut this bunch up by reminding them that hey, this is America. Dr. Paul (the elder) is the first to make the national news, but it's turning into a significant schism. I've even seen some friction in that regard in my shop, from various customers. However, since "bleeding = leading," the MSM is mostly ignoring Conservative support for the rights of the Muslims in this case. Even my Boss, who makes Il Duce and Augusto Pinochet look like screaming leftists, is on Cordoba's side. He wishes they'd build it someplace else and avoid all the noise and distraction, but he fully supports their right to build their Comm. Centre wherever they like. "I may not like it, but this is America and they've got the same rights as I do" is his stance.

What I do think this -is- showing (or perhaps accelerating) is a Paleo/Neo-Conservative split in the American Right. Dr. Paul represents the Paleo-Conservative faction, which supports the rights of all people, of all faiths, to practice their religion because agree with them or not, that's America and that's called being an adult. William Normal Grigg, formerly of the John Birch Society, is another Paleo-Conservative supporter of this project. His latest column, "Is The Muslim My Neighbor?"* is an excellent defense of this position from a Christian perspective. Others, most notably the excreable Newt Gingrich, represent the Neo-Conservative faction which has always been if not explicitly racist, fairly explicitly anti-Muslim, a flavour of collectivism which Dr. Paul, Mr. Grigg, myself, and most other Paleo-Conservative/libertarian thinkers reject out of hand.


freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

Can someone post a political ad from a Republican nominee who is running on a non-alarmist, moderate platform? I haven't seen one. This can only lead me to believe that the majority of Republican voters are motivated by these issues. So while I sympathize with appeals from Republican voters who are not of that ilk, I can't help but be left with the impression that they do not have a voice in their party at the moment. This should give pause to anyone who enjoys the rational idea of an America where everyone is (essentially) free.

I've been slowly watching a 10-part documentary on NYC for the past several weeks and it's striking to note how the resistance to the city's enormous influx of immigrants seemed to really heighten and seethe at times of economic crisis and war - sometimes resulting in terrible violence. I can't help but think we are experiencing yet another wave of this same sort of race-based apprehension in America right now. Not that I necessarily believe that there will be lynchings in the streets any time soon, but since when is a little bit of evil ok?

mix, I don't think either party represents my viewpoints at all only some.

what documentary is that?

Yup I've felt left behind by both parties for...well most of my life. I guess maybe I wasn't left behind so much as just not able to find a proper fit. I have a hard time identifying with either party and watching them fight over issues like this, to me, is just beyond pathetic. Hungry ticks attaching themselves to the underbelly of this story in a sad attempt to get attention and votes, its disgusting.

Never the less for every talking head, out of touch politician jumping and average Joe jumping all over this as the hot button du jour the level headed and rational still exist on both sides. Sadly they just seem to get lost in the mindless din and forgotten about at the polls.

Controversy sells.

well fine...that means that none of you folk are out there for these xenophobic little demonstrations. but there **are** people who participate and they operate in the name of conservatism--they take it over, they rebrand it. i would hope that they're doing conservatism alot of damage as well, but that's just me.

thing is that--again--i don't understand why there's no conservative push-back on this. why no conservative counter-demonstrations? why so few national level conservatives denouncing this neo-fascist turn?

speaking as someone well to the left of alot of folk here, there's a side of me that's content to watch the right eat itself.

but there's also the scenario that alarms me of political paralysis (which the republicans have been working on, which the tea party promises to only make more systematic) and economic crisis (27% drop in housing sales for the last month anyone? just saying, as an example--indicators or realities can come flying out of nowhere) combine as these neo-fascists give the appearance of a mass movement (and fascisms everywhere give the impression of being such a movement until they get into power, at which point they can remake themselves into a mass movement by fusing with the state and systematizing the violence that's implicit in strategies of exclusion)...

that said, though: where are all these alienated conservatives? is this alienation ok with you?

Regarding Posts 239 and 240: Opposing the building of a mosque within a one square mile radius in one city is not exactly the same as supporting the rounding up of all the Islamic, brown people and moving them to the old Japanese internment camps. I think you guys are letting your imaginations get the better of you - vilifying to the extreme.

Just as a reminder, I do not oppose the building of the mosque. I think the notion is tacky, but I don't oppose it.

I think Chris Dudley is probably the only Republican candidate I've seen, even in Oregon, running moderate ads--but that is because he knows he can't win this state without moderate independent voters.

for what it's worth, cimmaron, there is no mosque being built at or next to the giant hole in the ground. and if you want tacky, you should check out the "Ground Zero" souvenir industry. nothing leads americans in general to explosions of bad taste quite the way memorials do, particularly when they get a bit of that jingo powder mixed in like kool aid. but i digress.

if we were collectively to start banning stuff on the grounds of tackiness tho...we might get along better because it'd be fun, but there'd be a whole lot of stuff that'd disappear.

i don't think anyone's confusing the mounting racist climate directed against muslims that's building of this fake ground zero meme with the more actively racist stuff that's playing out in aridzona and, more recently, florida (at the level of draconian law at least).

for myself, i react more strongly to the islamophobia because of the network of folk i'm close to personally in meat-space. it concerns me that it's nauseating and freaking out people i love. what's happening in arizona is to me more objectively foul, if you know what i mean.

they seem to me of a piece, almost connected: the same kind of ultra-rightwing political sensibility.

Woah, I was referencing the Japanese internment camps from WWII when I said that. Your reply made me realize it could be taken as rounding up illegals in Arizona. Hmmmm, I'm going to go edit that post. Sorry, for the confusion.

....To go on, I suppose tacky might not be the best word. Perhaps, lack of sensibility? It's such a complicated mix of emotions for those involved, but they are only emotions - which is where rule of law steps in and where their right to build is absolute.

Having said all of that, I would challenge those who oppose it to tell me what an acceptable range is? 3 blocks? 4? How far out does the intolerant outrage reach? Perhaps we should string up a "Caution, no muslims allowed" tape around the circumference of intolerance, just so "they" will know where they can apply for building permits. Oooh, oooh! Or use some of those "Your stimulus money at work" signs to post around the "green zone"...er..."red, white, and blue zone?"

I think the problem is that at the end of the day issues like the Mosque just aren't that important to a lot of people out side of something to talk about around the water cooler or on a message board, why protest something you just don't care about one way or the other?

People are going to support a party they can identify with and for some that, for better or worse, is the Republican party. The average person just doesn't put that much time and energy into thinking about the latest hot button issue because they either don't have the time or simply don't care, when you're trying to scratch out a living and support a family these issues just stop carrying the weight some like to put behind them. So whats the average right of center minded person supposed to do? Vote Democrat? Throw away a vote on a third party? Of course not, they support the party that gives them the best chance of getting the government and policies they want regardless of weather or not they disagree with them on certain issues.

For starters, I'm not suggesting that this issue is indicative of the hardships thrust on German-, Japanese-, and Italian-Americans during WWII. I was taking the overall sentiment and speculating on how it could turn to the worse. Which leads to my second point: this isn't just about opposing a mosque being built in the general vicinity of Ground Zero. It stopped being that days ago when it hit a surge of media coverage and public reaction. It's no longer about Lower Manhattan. It's no longer about the Islamic cultural centre (it's not a mosque, remember?).

It has become a cultural, social, and religious opposition to Islam in America. This is a culture clash, not a local civic dispute.

I'm a big picture guy and I have too much of an imagination. I also happen to live in a bubble and am somewhat detached from reality. So take what I say at this point with a grain of salt.

even so, it's sometimes good to be reminded of certain things we all know, one way or another. like what martin niemoller said in 1946:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.


and what no passaran refered to at. say, the siege of madrid (1936 for those keeping score at home).

i've repeated it a bunch and would much rather be on to something else because there's lots of things to be interested by in the world. this does not interest me: it repulses.
these people are neo-fascists. straight up.
they dont have power and are kinda clowns, but the history that they align with---whether you like it or not---is littered with people who seemed like clowns.
i think they should be actively opposed.
it's not ok that the tea party---particularly not this manifestation of it, this racist dimension---gets such sweetheart coverage on faux news.
it's not ok that there is an ideological infrastructure that is able to perpetuate and extend the reach of this reactionary business.
it's not ok that there is an institutional frame that sees playing with this neo-fascism something that might be a tactical advantage.

this situation is not ok.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

I've always loved this quote and I wish more people would take it to heart (maybe we can slap this on front lawn of court houses instead of the 10 commandments) because they would care more about issues that don't immediately have any impact them (and I'm as guilty of that as the next guy...but I do try). BUT that doesn't really reflect the average person in my opinion and at the end of the day, for most, issues that have a direct impact on their lives will always trump issues that don't. In turn stuff like the ground zero mosque will be allowed to fester and grow while they worry about voting in somebody who will lower taxes (or whatever).

Then again our history here in the US is riddled with issues like this and no matter how ugly they seem to get at the height of the controversy we seem to do an okay good job at getting them worked out in the end. As troubling as some of this is, perhaps its not the worst idea in the world to just leave it alone and let those involved play it out. Facing an issue head on, getting our deepest thoughts and fears out on the table now, no matter how irrational might go a long way in getting people to think about it, learn from it and work on creating a better world tomorrow. Sometimes looking at raw ugliness right in the face can get people to realize that the values and beliefs they hold need to change.

truthfully, the democratic party doesn't represent all of my views, either...rather, I don't find that they always walk it like they talk it.

This documentary:

New York

It's actually 8 parts, not 10. I was mistaken. But each disc is about 2 hours - it's very comprehensive. And fascinating. We have watched episodes 1-3.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

and thank you for the video evidence, snowy :-)

There's been a few conservative leaders identified just in this thread who are not against construction of the mosque.

I personally have no problem with this mosque (actually cultural center from some articles I've read).

So far I haven't seen any proof that everyone attending the anti-mosque rallies is a conservative nor have I seen any proof that no conservatives have attended pro-mosque rallies.

What I have seen is a few Democrats opposed to this mosque, starting with Harry Reid and now NY Gov Paterson and NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver backing away from allowing construction to proceed at that site.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38835097

If this poll is any indication, it's not just conservatives that are opposed to the mosque

Many More Now Following Mosque Controversy ? And Don?t Like It - Rasmussen Reports

As far as I know, conservatives do not make up 77% of the mainstream voter class. Ignorance and intolerance exists in both groups. Surprise surprise.

yes, I love that series. Ric Burns really did make such a masterpiece with that series. It really helps me understand the city that I live in so much better than the tales I've been told and books that I've read. I keep thinking of buying it from PBS during their begathons.

I watched the original airing after 9/11 but before they completed the 8th episode. The last episode almost kills me when I watch it, especially when I watch the series from end to end, it's like a sad ending to a movie.

The best part though is that the tale isn't over and there's still more story to tell. Hopefully someone else will make another documentary that continues the story.

You should check out his Civil War series.

No, but approximately 76% of Americans are Christians. Coincidence? :orly:

Really? All Christian faiths from people like Fred Phelps all the way to some liberal Christian groups have the same position against the mosque construction? I kind of doubt that.

It seems to me you're implying every Christian is against the mosque, which is impossible. I'm a Christian and I'm all for building it, that's one down. There are many more like me who are not against it. Are you also implying that all Christians in America are intolerant of Islam?

Bad job on your part, Baraka.

Note the smiley, folks. (I couldn't find a tongue-in-cheek smiley, sorry.)

It was my idea of a sardonic dig on stats relating to people's values and opinions on a large scale. I've seen too many tonight, I think, and I went overboard.

actually his brother Ken Burns made the Civil War series, although I think they may have collaborated on it. I was a little confused at first, too, I didn't know that Ken Burns had a filmmaker brother. :)

P has the Civil War series here and I would like to watch it when we are finished with this one. Ken Burns also did a two part biography of Mark Twain which we watched last year.

But yes, this NY film is very moving and inspiring at times. The city has such a rich and truly awe-inspiring history. I've had many jaw-dropping moments, lol, and we're not even halfway through it.

/sorry to digress...

interesting, dogzilla. so that poll repeated the terms specific to the conservative fiction that's replaced the reality of an islamic center that's to be built a few blocks from the center of the world trade center souvenir business. and it is about the power of framing, i'd say. once again the conservative media apparatus manufactures a story. they manufacture a way to package that story (patricia geller, fascist blogger with an islam Problem) and then the well-funded populist conservative media-space repeats that manufactured story ad infinitum. it makes its way into the mainstream press as a manufactured item initially, then as a Problem with the ultra-right---look at those racists and what they're doing---but the repetition seems to eventually acquire its own tipping point.

btw ramussen polls are done nightly. they're as shallow as shallow can be.
what you're seeing with the results is bounce-back of a television signal.

but hey, those results may be laughable but they makes the tea party's racism look like its just part of a more general racism.
so therefore it must be ok to be racist.
q.e.d., yes?

If they are the 'bounce back' of a TV signal, then they are more likely to reflect developing trends instead of research done a month ago. Regardless, the beauty of polls is that there's so many to choose from. Just pick your favorite poll and voila, you are a public opinion expert.

What's laughable is the Democrat/liberal attempts to portray this as solely a conservative/Tea Party issue. That might be believable if I hadn't seen instances of racism and bigotry from the liberal camp before.

I guess that Reid, Paterson and Silver are just pandering to their conservative base.

i think this is primarily an ultra-right issue. if you look at the actual history of it--you know, what actually happened, how this "issue" came to be packaged as it now is--and there's a salon article i posted earlier in the thread that does exactly that---you will see, that this is story is entirely of conservative manufacture.

and for the record, i have mostly contempt for the democratic party. collectively, it's only consistent virtue is that it's not republican and not part of the conservative media-space that you, for example, seem to inhabit thoroughly. i am personally neither interested in nor surprised by various democrats saying nonsense about this "issue"...alot of those same heroic democrats caved in before the bush administrations entirely fabricated cases for war too.

centrists. no spine at all.

Why don't the Democrats milk wedge issues close to elections like Republicans do? Am I missing that somehow?

I like this simple, straightforward look at how this issue really is vs. what the astroturf protesters seem to think.
http://i.imgur.com/E6jfk.jpg

if only it were so simple.

more depressing polls and an almost equally depressing array of ideas about the depressing polls.
with one or two exceptions.
sheesh.

When Is a Muslim Not a Muslim? - NYTimes.com

That describes what I feel about this.

Good post, roachboy. Thanks for not talking about the "evil right" for once, I would have never thought you'd make a post I'd agree to. :thumbsup:

neo-fascism concerns me.
maybe it doesn't concern you.
i dunno.

Seems like business as usual to me, has there ever been a in a time in the US when some group or minority wasn't demonized and mistreated? Considering our past the treatment Muslims in the this country since 9/11 has been breath of fresh air (well maybe not fresh air...a little less dank and moldy perhaps).

At least these idiots aren't in the majority, at least we haven't passed laws baring Muslims from running for office, we haven't rounded them up and put them in camps...the mosque/community center will probably get built and if it does it just goes to show that those protesting really have no power over anything and legally its just noise. As sad as this may sound our country might be making progress when it comes to dealing with minorities, and things that are "different". Who knows in a few generations we might actually collectively move past this stuff all together.

Imagine if this whole Muslim/Mosque thing was being debated 50 years ago. I would think...well for one Barack Obama would be nowhere near the White House...but the numbers being sighted in most polls would probably be light years higher and the fallout much, much uglier.

It does, but it's not as pressing to me as it is to you. Maybe one day (God forbid) we'll see stronger elements of fascism, but I don't think we're on that track just because some people who belong in the looney bin are spouting off their crazy ideas.

This gives me an upset stomach. :sad:

Its pretty sad isn't it Will? But I can't think of a time when some group wasn't in the position the Muslims are right now. Again considering our past we've handled this round of blind ignorance much better then we would have in the decades ago.

Its almost a little promising and maybe there is a little light at the end of the tunnel.

Isn't it it like that for the entire world? This doesn't seem like an "only in America" kind of thing. Someone will always hate someone else, it's human nature. A group or race or whatever else you can think of will always be looked down upon and sometimes be made the scapegoat. It will never go away completely.

Sure and singling out the US is probably a little unfair, we certainly aren't the only ones. But you're right its never going to go away completely but as long as its getting better and not worse there is always hope.

i have to be somewhere soon, so all i can say is that we live in a mass-media environment & that people select their political viewpoints like any other consumer item in the main except that they live through them at least for particular durations, in particular situations. the game that the populist right is playing with the fictional mosque is exactly the same game that neo-fascist organizations all over europe play with islam. the game the populist right plays with immigration is the same. the difference is that in western europe, neo-fascist organizations are named publicly--which is a problem for them because it forces people to choose explicitly to align with neo-fascist politics. here in the states, there is no naming. it's "the tea party" and the xenophobic/racist politics that are mobilizing the tea partiers right now are not labelled what they are. and in the name of some illusory "balance" this neo-fascism is given **heavy** media exposure, which functions to legitimate it, extend it.

this is not a sky-is-falling situation. i focus on it the way i do in this thread because of the topic of the thread and because it affects people close to me directly. but i don't think it's a Crisis. but i do think that there is something really really wrong with a political context that allows neo-fascism to become a mass movement, to be normalized as just another conservative position. it isn't. and i would expect conservatives to be right there to point that out.

and maybe all this happens in meat-space over beverages and conviviality which is very not like the narrowcasting of a messageboard.

but there we are.

I wasn't sure if this belonged here more so than it deserving its own thread, but we can split this off later if we must.

Below is a news item breaking out of Tennessee regarding a case of arson against the building of a mosque. It appears it's been facing hostile opposition for a while now, and now this.

The negative (and ignorant) sentiment surrounding people's views of Islam in general is getting disgusting, and a little bit frightening.

Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson - CBS News

If I didn't know any better, I'd think the people who say things like "They are not a religion. They are a political, militaristic group" are joking because of how crazy that sounds. "That sounds so stupid, it must be a joke." If only.

Do protests ever get anything done? I'm not only talking about anti-Islam protests, I'm talking about any kind. They walk around in 90 degree heat for a few hours as their arms fall off from holding the sign up so long. I've never been to any kind of protest, but it seems almost pointless. You show up, march around and yell and be stupid, and then you leave, end of transaction. Am I in the general area of being correct?

Occasionally they'll see some small successes like women's suffrage or civil rights for blacks.

I know the civil rights movements back in the day had success with protests, but I meant modern day, within the past 10 years. I should have made that more clear in my post.

Look at it this way: protests are a part of the dance between government and the public. When political candidates are running for a spot, they campaign for votes by presenting their platform. On the other side of things, when politicians are in positions already, people might protest their actions or, more generally, the state of things in one area or another. Protests, then, are a kind of campaigning by the public. Politicians campaign by telling the public what they'll do, whereas the public campaigns by telling politicians what they want.

If you think about it, it's some pretty sweet feedback. There are two main ways that politicians get feedback from potential voters. They can either conduct formal surveys or they can pay attention to the public's actions, whether it be petitions, protests, or other street actions. The larger, the most important, in both respects, but which will yield more genuine results, the surveys or the public actions? What would you give more weight to? What the public tells you when you ask, or what the public tells you without your prompting them at all?

Although you probably won't find many examples of direct correlation like during the civil rights movement, I would suggest that protesting has at least some effect. It all depends on the scope and whether the protests/movements/topics are high profile.

I had missed this when it aired last week--
The Parent Company Trap - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/23/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

My...god...that's terrible. Does anyone know of any good ear bleach?

Before anyone asks, yes this is for real. It was produced by WooTV.us, "Home of the Conservative Voice."

It raises a good question too: Are there any good conservative protest songs?

Would you be interested in investigation of the funds for the building, if one of the key donators was found to have donated to an organization that was frozen by the FBI to giving money to a terrorist group. If it was just a guy who gave 100 bucks I would not care, but since there now is 1 certified tie (as long as the press is correct) then I think the funds should be reviewed.

Article

Oh, that's the guy in Long Island who donated six grand to the largest Islamic charity group in the U.S. two years before the feds froze their assets and declared them a terror group for funding Hamas.

"[An indictment against the charity's officers was not] a reflection on the well-meaning people who may have donated funds to the foundation." –John Ashcroft

Is that all they have? Are they grasping at straws or are they, as New York magazine puts it, gearing up for a witch hunt?

Where's Glenn Beck and his magical chalkboard?
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/s...beckchart3.jpg

He's the only one who can get to the truth of the matter.

Hey, Fugly, don't knock the chalk. I wish he'd get a dry erase board, everything about chalk boards makes me uneasy. But that's for another thread.

Baraka, I've never heard of any good conservative protest songs. The issues they protest aren't the best at making songs for. Not edgy enough.

Are you saying there are no songs about cutting taxes for the rich?

Witch hunt, indeed. Now convince me that Hamas is a terrorist group.

Hey, leave me out of this. I have no reason to convince you of as much. Although it should be noted that both of our governments consider it to be so.

How can anyone claim that America was founded on Christianity? Amazing. If this lady believes that the native peoples nature religion's are all completely invalid she at least should have the decency to believe in Odin and Thor, etc -

But I dont think this kind of ignorance of religion if an American problem at all. I think it is worse in the UK. I have had people knock on my door trying to convert me who do not even know the bible as well as I do and cannot have a sensible discussion about it.

I supsect that the average English Christian would be clueless about the connections between Islam and Christianity, would have no clue that Jesus was an important prophet of Allah in the Qu'ran and so on.

_

On the whole thing about building a mosque next to the WTC... I really dont understand the issue. Maybe since all but one (I believe?) of the terrorists involved in the attacks where Saudi these people should instead put their energy into encouraging the US to boycott Saudi oil? This should have many benefits to the environment as well as allowing them to show their disgust at the 9/11 atrocity.