« One Thought on Economic Stimulus | Main | Good Thing We Didn't Bail Out Detroit »

August 13, 2010

Comments

his extensive ties to...the Bush administration.

Well crap, guess I have to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque now.

ignorant, and reckless, anti-Muslim demagoguery being aggressively pursued by leading Republican and conservative voices in connection with the expansion of the Muslim cultural center blocks away from the WTC site,

Speaking of, Krauthammer joins in today.

Speaking of, Krauthammer joins in today.

Krauthammer's argument is, basically, that someday somebody like al-Aulaki might preach at the proposed community center, so it shouldn't be built.

There's no really substantive reason to not build the community center, so he'll offer the figments of his imagination instead.

The only reason to not build the community center is because it will offend some people.

That's all well and good, but not building it will also offend some people.

So, it would appear that people's feelings are not going to provide a reliable guide to the right thing to do.

If it bugs you, it bugs you, and you're entitled to your perspective.

But it's not your freaking building, it most likely is not your freaking neighborhood.

Lots of people have lots of different kinds of claims to make on lower Manhattan. Most of the people who are clamoring for the community center to not be built have no particular claim on that real estate other than whatever personal trauma they felt on 9/11.

No small number of those folks have, in fact, no particular interest in the city of NY, or the people who live there, and many of them in fact actively dislike the city itself.

It's just kind of a "remember the Maine!" thing for them. No offense.

And in fact, it's not even that noble. They're fine with commercial redevelopment of the site, they just don't want Muslims involved.

In contrast, lots and lots of other people live in lower Manhattan, work there, make their lives there.

Some of those folks are bugged by the community center, some are adamantly in support of it, and in true NYC fashion, lots and lots of folks don't really care either way.

It's a community center, like a YMCA, only funded and run by Muslims.

The Muslims in question don't want to kill anybody. They want to pray, they want daycare for their kids, and they want to take a swim at lunchtime.

And even if you're not Muslim, you can come, too.

It's not at the WTC site, it's two blocks away, which in Manhattan is a non-trivial distance. You won't even be able to see the damned thing from the WTC site.

This whole thing is stupidity squared.

I appreciate that 9/11 freaked a lot of people out. I appreciate that lots of folks don't have a lot of exposure to Muslims other than scary monster sh*t on the TV. I appreciate that a lot of people were killed at the site.

None of that has anything to do with what the Cordoba folks are trying to do.

Conservatives are supposed to be all about local folks doing local stuff in their local way. That's what these people are doing.

Leave them the hell alone.

I certainly hope Karen Hughes gets the full body-scanning and wanding treatment at the airport.

This thread has been another edition of "what russell said".

Conservatives are supposed to be all about local folks doing local stuff in their local way.

nah. that's just something they put in their recruitment brochures to lure the rubes in.

Conservatives are supposed to be all about local folks doing local stuff in their local way. That's what these people are doing.

When you say conservatives, I think what you really mean are right wing cultural partisans. That is, they are well to the right on many/most issues, they have a significant sense that the feds have a major cultural role to play (so does a good chunk of the left) but most of all, they take whatever position opposes their political opponents without regard to merit or principle. This is hardly unique to the right, BTW.

If he's linked to the Bush Administration, he's linked to war criminals... isn't that worse?

And in fact, it's not even that noble. They're fine with commercial redevelopment of the site, they just don't want Muslims involved.

As has been pointed out, there are two strip clubs (of the very seedy variety) equidistant to the WTC site. Nary a peep.

In contrast, lots and lots of other people live in lower Manhattan, work there, make their lives there.

I work Midtown, but have lived in the financial district or tribeca since July 2001. Nice sense of timing, that.

... they take whatever position opposes their political opponents without regard to merit or principle. This is hardly unique to the right, BTW.

I say it IS almost entirely unique to the Right, and I don't say that just because McTx says the opposite.

McKinney, you must have some examples of the Left opposing the Right regardless of merit or principle. Care to name a couple?

Tell you what: I will spot you one. I have no particular respect for Islam; it's just another religion. I support the Cordoba thing mainly because the likes of Palin and Gingrich oppose it. I say this mainly as an atheist, not so much as a Leftie. But I'm willing to spot it to you anyway.

So, got another one?

--TP

i "support" the Cordoba thing as much as i support any religious structure: i don't really care either way. if it was in my neighborhood, i'd would prefer they used the land for a really good sub shop instead of another Baptist church. but, that's not my call.

if wingnuts want to oppose it, well, it just makes them look even more idiotic. and i can't wait to see what kind of hypocrisy we'll see during this year's War On Christmas! "freedom OF religion not FROM religion" will be even more fun, now. regardless, i still support the Center exactly the same amount as i would if i'd never heard of it.

McKinney, you must have some examples of the Left opposing the Right regardless of merit or principle. Care to name a couple?

As time permits, I hope to begin cataloging bad behavior by both sides so I have it ready for retrieval on occasions like this. I almost posted with "I can't think of a particular policy right off", but then I remembered Guantanamo and Bagram. I am certain there are others. Maybe someday we'll have a partisan hypocrisy thread where we're given 30 days to do our research and then hammer on each other (although showing the repubs are hypocrites won't bother me in the least).

Guantanamo and Bagram

Uh, seriously? That's your go-to example for how Democrats oppose things regardless of their merits just because Republicans want them?

Okay, I've been trying to stay away from here today, what with all I have to do, but...

McKinneyTexas: "but then I remembered Guantanamo and Bagram."

Um, what? Would you care to explain what about them "the Left" was opposing only because it was being done by "the Right", and not on principle?

Because last I checked, one of the major liberal criticisms of Obama was that he hasn't closed down Gitmo and Bagram and the other torture black sites, on the principle that torture is wrong, no matter what letter is after the name of the person doing it, ordering it, or allowing it.

It was a quick response. I realize the left wants out of both, I was remembering a particular Dem, Obama, who said one thing at one point and then flipped, as the only thing I could come up with on short notice. Like I said, i'd like to do a hypocrisy thread with time to prepare, not have to respond on the fly. No offense intended.

As has been pointed out, there are two strip clubs (of the very seedy variety) equidistant to the WTC site.

Strip clubs are truly offensive, since they're exactly the sort of place that terrorists frequent in the days leading up to their suicide missions.

Conservatives are supposed to be all about local folks doing local stuff in their local way.

That's what they say, but it looks to me as though the kind of "conservatives" who are opposed to the Cordoba Initiative are mostly interested in getting their own way. Respect for local folks doing local stuff is a convenient excuse when the liberals control the Federal government, but it seems to disappear when the "conservatives" are the ones in charge. It sure didn't seem to carry much weight when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts allowed gays to marry or the State of California legalized medical marijuana.

Indeed - the "conservatives" opposed to the Cordoba Institute aren't your aw-shucks small-guv conservatives; they're big-gov agenda-setters who advocate reaching into people's personal lives and dictating moral choices and outlook. The small-guv shtick is to "assure" people that that's not what they're really doing.

The right gave up on small-guv when they found that centralized power served their purposes better for the moral engineering they also like, no matter how much that contradicted whatever small-guv was supposed to bring us. Because there's nothing more that animates them than cultural proprietorship, liberty or economy be damned.

Since they got roadblocked dismantling Social Security and all the other socio-economic things they still can't forgive FDR for, they're going for the socio-cultural angle, confident that Americans are dumb enough to fall for it. (To a point, it's worked) This shows how much contempt they really have for people who aren't rich and/or powerful because they're not concerned with picking up the pieces for this later on with anybody, let alone the Muslim community.

Is it not just a coincidence that one of the largest Muslim communities in the U.S. is in Dearborn, Michigan - hardly a place that the right cares all that much about - and that large Muslim communities tend to be in other places that the right has little regard for - Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and other Rust Belt-y kinds of places?

The Muslim vote plays no role in the base, so with all the far-sightedness they've demonstrated for economic matters, they're slugging away at this with no regard for what it'll do tomorrow.

I will also admit that 'connected to the Right' triggers the 'negative' dafault setting with me but I am at least willing to change my opinion on merit.
I think McKinneyTexas walked right into the trap of 'supposed to' by essentially making the same point, i.e. that the behaviour of the 'real' conservatives is at right angles to that of 'supposed' conservatives. "The Left" is proudly 'pro BIG Government', although for different purposes, so their hypocrisy tends to be on a far lower scale on that one.
---
The fringe right (and their backers in the shadows) has been pushing the meme that Dubya is actually a stinking liberal for some time now, so connecting the Cordoba people to him would not work even without the engineered amnesia.

a couple of points that may or may not be minor.

1. i cannot imagine that any right winger (or anyone else for that matter) would be offended if the very same site the cordoba people seek to place a muslim cultural center at were being proposed for a jewish or christian cultural center. yes, it was muslims who brought down the buildings and killed all those innocents, but it wasn't these muslims. i would also note that innocent muslims were killed.

2. has it occurred to anyone that there are already a couple of active mosques within blocks of the wtc site that have been active for years without any hoopla from anyone? See, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion/14mosque.html?ref=nyregion. if this is the case, and considering that the same people who have been quietly and peacefully worshipping in the shadow of the wtc site for years, other than the fact that this is a chance to whip up the base by fearmongering, why should anyone care about this proposal?

Speaking of, Krauthammer joins in today.

Nice. I guess WaPo decided they needed to produce an even shoddier argument against the community center than the one that appeared on their op-ed page Sunday. Krauthammer to the rescue.

...why should anyone care about this proposal?

the GOP cares because they can use it to fire up The Base during election season.

because they're the party of grown-ups.

Bush Administration: Palling Around with Terrorists?

Only if you're talking about Orlando Bosch.

OT - so I reads me this NYTimes article on the wonderful "secret" counterterrorism war thingy this country is currently waging against, er, "the bad people," and my takeaways are: (i) we have no idea what we're doing; (ii) we're doing it anyway; (iii) the fact that we're doing it means it's successful; (iv) there are lots of dead people as a result of it; and (v) we're totally fncked.

Another takeaway: the people running this "secret" campaign are asscovering paranoid sociopaths, by design. E.g.: Some American officials believe that militants in Yemen could now pose an even greater threat than Al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan. Jeebus.

So what have we accomplished? The strikes [in Yemen], administration officials say, have killed dozens of militants suspected of plotting future attacks. Clearly we're about to be overrun by "militants" who might be plotting some sort of attack (on who? where?) in the future (when?).

Thus we have the right to summarily execute them based on... a reliance on authoritarian foreign leaders and surrogates with sometimes murky loyalties. Hoo boy.

But since al Qaeda in Yemen is so scary we at least have a well oiled and experienced covert machine up an running there right? Right? American officials cited strained resources for decisions about some of the Yemen strikes. the C.I.A.’s armed drones tied up with the bombing campaign in Pakistan, the officials said, cruise missiles were all that was available at the time. Huh, or not.

But wait! The strikes have been “conducted very methodically,” and claims of innocent civilians being killed are “very much exaggerated,” said a senior counterterrorism official. Methodical, good, and apparently innocent civilians are killed less then some people claim, which is, um, good?

But hey, if we do kill a bunch of civilians, like say An inquiry by the Yemeni Parliament found that the strike had killed at least 41 members of two families living near the makeshift Qaeda camp. Three more civilians were killed and nine were wounded four days later when they stepped on unexploded munitions from the strike, the inquiry found. It's just because In Yemen, officials said, there is a dearth of solid intelligence about Qaeda operations. “It will take time to develop and grow that capability,” the senior official said.

So, to sum up, we are methodically going about conducting airstrikes in Yemen despite a dearth of solid intelligence about al Qaeda there, and yet any reports of civilian deaths must be "exaggerated" because, uh, we're very methodical about our lack of intelligence before bombing.

Fnck, fnck, fnck, fnck, fnck.

Also note that this insanity is apparently going on in a dozen freaking countries.

My count: iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, and somalia. That leaves seven (and possibly more if iraq and afghanistan).

10 years from now when some Kerplakistani blows himself up at a mall in Minneapolis people in the United States will demand we invade for such an "unprovoked" attack.

I'm moving to Auckland.

People, the true threat are the terror babies. Pregnant Muslim females travel to the US to deliver their babies (without paying!!!) then go home and train their US citizenship holding spawn to be terrorists. When the monsters have grown up they can go to the US without impediment to commit acts of terrorism. Therefore it is necessary to undo the 14th amendment plus HCR (the US is the only country in history where present and future enemies receive free healthcare!).
I heard the Congressman say it just two days ago on the sacred floor, so it must be true (and didn't Obama's parents do so too?).

Btw, it was Republican U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert of East Texas who ranted about the terror babies.

thankfully (if we believe Haaretz), our long national nightmare might soon be over. Muslim leaders might be backing down.

heckofa job, Founders.

F*ck man. THAT pisses me off.

"So what have we accomplished? The strikes [in Yemen], administration officials say, have killed dozens of militants suspected of plotting future attacks. Clearly we're about to be overrun by "militants" who might be plotting some sort of attack (on who? where?) in the future (when?). "

Or from here

our own Gary Farber describes the whole process best, a giant game of Where's Waldo costing trillions. A year later, still true.

Miss USA, Rima Fakih, lives in Dearborn MI. Her family moved there from NYC because they were tired up putting up with the crap (threats, vandalism) they received after 9/11.

Near as I can tell, the Cordoba folks went about this in good faith, and with all good intentions. In return, they get to be the political chew toy du jour.

Were I them, I'd say f**k it, too. Who needs that kind of headache?

Between the ration of crap that we're dishing out to Muslims and Mexicans, I'd say it's time to take the Statue of Liberty down and sell it for scrap.

russell, when France did not march in lockstep to war in Iraq with Dubya, there were demands for something like that ("Send Back the Staue of Liberty") from the right. Iirc there was even a French answer along the lines of "if you don't want it anymore, of course we will gratefully accept it back but don't expect a return should you change your mind later". I was never able to find out whether the demand to replace it with a statue of Reagan was meant seriously or a hoax though.
---
Maybe the GOP will soon adopt the slogan of the German 'moderate' right "[name of country] is no country of immigration!".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad