What a moronic statement for Newt Gingrich to make. More on that later….

I know I shouldn’t be since it is the norm nowadays, but I am still dumbfounded by the level of insanity of people regarding a variety of issues. One that blows my mind is regarding the building of an Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque about two blocks from where the World Trade Center was destroyed (you know, on September 11, 2001 or as some like to call it, 9/11). All of this supposed outrage about how insensitive it would be to build such a thing so close to the ground of the former WTC buildings. All of this fear-mongering about how such a building will destroy the fabric of religion in the United States and how the Muslims are going to takeover our country if this building is erected.

When I ask how someone for facts to substantiate these claims, I, of course, get none. All I get is a parroting of talk radio or opinion shows (e.g., Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity) in my ear.

According to polls, which I take with a grain of salt, I am in the minority opinion here …. which, if true, baffles me to no end.

But, I am here to enlighten with some facts and rational reasoning; not hyperbole. I know that is a novel concept to many people, but, please, I ask you to indulge me.

• A lone Mosque is not being built. It is an Islamic cultural center, of which contains a Mosque.
• There are 1 billion Muslims in the world, give or take. Or approximately 1/6 of the world’s population.
• There are 6-10 million Muslim in the United States, many of whom are citizens. Or approximately 2% of the U.S. population.
• Let’s for sake of argument say that 1 million Muslims around the world hate our country and want the United States to be destroyed. That would account for 0.1% of the entire Muslim population. Obviously, that number is probably much less, but I needed to make a point there.
• The 19 hijackers were not practicing the preachings of the true Islamic faith.
• True believers in the Islamic faith were killed in the World Trade Center.
• True believers in the Islamic faith were amongst the first responders to the WTC and Pentagon scene after the disaster. Some of those have chronic health problems now because they were trying to save Americans (yes, even Christian Americans).
• There is a Mosque in the Pentagon. There has been for a while. Should that be removed now? Where is the faux outrage about that? I mean it too was struck, and that Mosque is INSIDE the ground zero of the Pentagon, not two blocks away.
• So-called Christians kill in the name of Jesus Christ.

So, I have laid out some pretty hard facts here. Let’s analyze.

According to the anti-cultural center people, building this cultural center at the proposed location is insensitive. So, by that count, it means that building a Christian church where Scott Roeder killed George Tiller would be insensitive; in fact, I guess we need to tear that church down since the murder occurred in a church. What about in Oklahoma City? Should any Christian Church be torn down or never erected near the Murrah building because of Timothy McVeigh.

My point is that those 19 hijackers no more represent true Islam than Roeder or McVeigh represent true Christianity. Let’s say 1000 people were behind the WTC and Pentagon attacks; that would represent 0.0001% of all Muslims in the world. That is hardly a representative sample of Muslims and the faith of Islam.

Now back to Newt Gingrich and comparing the Islamic Center to Nazi swastikas. It is clear he is playing on the ignorance and fears of his followers. So he gets them all riled and stoked up. Let me clear something up, Newt. The Nazis were 100% fanatic and intolerant. Every single one of them. It wasn’t as if 10% of those who considered themselves Nazis wanted to cleanse the earth of non-Aryan people and the other 90% were inclusive and tolerant. Contrast that with the Islamic Center. 99.9% of Muslims are peace loving and try to follow the good teachings of their faith. But we, as the media hungry people we are, decide to focus on that 0.1% (on the high side), and that, in turn, makes Islam a horrible religion not to be tolerated at a place where tragedy occurs. That is wrong.

Let’s just lay it out all on the table. It is clear that those that brought down the WTC and Pentagon were not practicing true Islam just as Tim McVeigh, Scott Roeder or Eric Rudolph were not practicing true Christianity. The crux of this issue is prejudice against Muslims and the Islamic religion hidden by a cloak of wishy-washiness around “have the right, but it is insensitive to do so”. Like I said in my last post about illegal immigration, just be honest. It is more respectable.

Here is what I think should happen. Build a multi-religious, multi-cultural center at the WTC site. Why are we stopping at just Islam? Build a Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic, etc. site where we can celebrate the diversity that is all religions and maybe try to learn all the good things about these religions. Wouldn’t that be a novel idea? Actually trying to learn something instead of making all of your decisions based on radio and television sound bites.

How can the actions of a statistically zero sample of people can make our country turn against an entire religion? The folks building this center say it is for education and peace. Why can’t we just believe that and be proud that we aren’t letting a small group of assholes (i.e. the few that were behind the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon) dictate our commitment to the First Amendment and the celebration that is the melting pot of the United States? Instead, though, we have decided to make presuming the worst the norm. Sad.

It is always harder to take a position of tolerance. That is a fact. And any support for this Islamic Cultural Center being built is not being insensitive. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The sensitivity lies in the understanding that those who do not tolerate our religious freedoms would love nothing more than for religious intolerance to stop this Islamic Cultural Center from being built. And if that happens, those folks will celebrate another victory over the United States.

P.S. Oh yeah, to all those supposed folks who clamor about how our Constitution is being trampled by this President and his administration — this Islamic Center is all covered by the First Amendment, whether insensitive or not.

There is this incessant uproar about illegal immigration. I don’t claim to understand the nuances of the entire issue; I don’t claim to know how to solve the problem (assuming there is such a problem and it hasn’t been politically overblown). What I do know is that the discussion leaves out a very important historical point.

First, let me see if I understand the plan:

1. Find and deport all those that are here “illegally”.

2. Build a 2000 mile guarded wall that will be futile to keep anyone out.

That pretty much sums it up.

Let’s disregard the fact for just a second that a majority of those that cross the border are here looking for work to better themselves and their families. Let’s disregard the fact for another second that they are taking jobs that many of us Americans don’t want to touch with a 10 foot pole (Check this out: Take Our Jobs). Let’s disregard the fact that the employers of illegal immigrants should be the ones held accountable for hiring them for under minimum wage rates. Let’s disregard the gigantic cost of controlling immigration via the two steps above, thus putting our children in even more debt (what happened to fiscal responsibility?). Let’s disregard all that. Let’s focus on double standards and hypocrisy.

I seem to recall a time in the 17th century where this boat called the Mayflower carrying English IMMIGRANTS (i.e., the pilgrims) came to America looking for a better life for them and their families (in this case it was less about jobs and more about escaping persecution). I could swear that there was no border patrol by the Native American Indians asking for papers. The pilgrims just marched onto this land and started settling. And then as time went on more settlers joined in the fun, eventually just driving the Native American Indians out (either by killing them or putting them on reservations).

So, no one has been able to successfully explain to me why one one hand it was ok for English settlers (of which many of us Americans are descendants) to come to a foreign land, rape it from its current inhabitants (the Indians) and start a whole new life AND on the other hand it is not ok for those across the border in Mexico to come over here….not to rape and steal our land, but rather to find work and a better life.

I think it is a mentality of “Who cares about the past and what our ancestors did to claim America as their own; we “own” America now; so damn it, kick ‘em out!”

Most everyone here in America are descendants from folks from another land, many of whom waltzed onto this land called America and just claimed it for themselves. No citizenship test. No border guard. Nothing. We just came and conquered. Pretty much the opposite of what those crossing the border want to do today; no conquering, just working.

So, please, prove that I am wrong. Provide an explanation here. Or, better yet, be man or woman enough to stop hiding behind some “using all our resources, committing all of the nation’s crimes, etc.” rationale. Admit that we are operating under a hypocritical, double standard, and that is just the way it is; I would respect that explanation a lot more.

So what to do?

Let the Republicans filibuster? Sure. That’s an idea. Let them filibuster healthcare and Senate Democrats won’t put anything else on the agenda until they end their filibuster or the 2010 elections. If the latter, then the voters can decide whether they were happy with obstructionism or not. Obviously, this sort of “ballsy” move won’t happen.

But as Democrats with an *18* vote majority in the Senate and a commanding majority in the house, you need to start governing. Now!!

Most everyone believes the healthcare system needs reform. Well, here is what should be done:

Create small, separate bills w/ the following legislation:

1. No pre-existing conditional denial; no revoking insurance when a condition arises.
2. Guaranteed, subsidized catastrophic coverage to those out of work (i.e. taxpayer funded).
3. Cap on premiums/deductibles to avoid gouging high risk persons.
4. Ability to buy insurance from anywhere and port it to anywhere.
5. Guaranteed, subsidized twice yearly checkups and vaccinations for all Americans (i.e. taxpayer funded).

They would be simple and easy for anyone to understand. I would dare anyone, Republican or Democrat to vote against these. Because if they did, they would have to explain to their constituents why they voted against the person with diabetes who couldn’t get healthcare for insulin or the working Mom who was laid off and developed cancer and now cannot get insurance because she cannot afford it.

(The easiest thing to do would be to pass HR-676 from John Conyers which gurantees healthcare access to all. It is less than a 30 page bill. It is simple and to the point. But, obviously, for reasons that I cannot comprehend, that won’t be passed anytime soon)

Hello,

I am curious. At any of your town hall meetings in August, did you once, while you were denouncing a public plan for health care, say that you will sponsor a bill to totally rescind Medicare, Social Security and Public Education? As you know, all these are government run. I imagine that you did not. You would lose a lot of your electorate if you did that. And therein lies the hypocrisy.

I don’t mind honest debate. I don’t mind disagreement. What I do mind is misinformation, misdirection, hypocrisy and outright lies when talking about an issue.

And when you encourage, or at the very least don’t denounce, ill-informed views that public healthcare will create "death panels", a pure Hitler-like take over by our government, the loss of patient/doctor privilege, etc., then there is an integrity issue. And without integrity in a debate, all is lost.

The healthcare debate has become more about fear-mongering and keeping political power. And that is sad.

I deserve better. The American people deserve better.

Sincerely,

Joel Marcey, citizen of your district.

I will post a response, if I get one.

Historic day today, no matter what point on the political spectrum on which you lie. I shed a tear today, and for me that doesn’t happen very often. I wish him and our country Godspeed in fixing the many messes that need fixin’ and in grasping by the horns the many challenges that need graspin’.

(And, yes, I did notice Justice Roberts screw up the administering of the oath of office — Obama got stuck a bit, but laughed it off )

Here is a link to the article (there are many — just do a search): http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2008/02/14/news/20080214_front%20page_13.txt

Now I don’t know whether this story is true or not, but what always strikes me are the inevitable refutes that occur to pretty much any study. From the article:

But Larry Dozier, deputy general manager at the Central Arizona Project, which supplies Colorado River water to the Phoenix and Tucson areas, called the Scripps study “absurd.”
“I think they must have made some pretty outrageous assumptions to come up with some outrageous conclusions,” he said. He said his agency’s own study of the water levels in the two lakes showed they were in no danger of drying up.

Someone has to be right, right? I don’t understand how the two studies can be done that come to completely opposite conclusions.

But it happens all of the time.

Global warming is the biggest showcase of this “contradictory phenomenon” that I know of. A gazillion scientists have done studies and say it exists, humans contribute to it, etc. But there are scientists who have done studies who say that it does not exist, and it is a result of the normal course of Earth’s being. I don’t know for sure whether global warming exists or not, as I have not done any studies for myself. I tend to believe that something funny is going on, but I could not give you certainty. But, again, I don’t understand how supposedly reputable experts in a given field can come up with polar opposite conclusions on a given study.

This type of thing happens with economic data, military data, etc. It is just baffling to me.

I am, at heart, an engineer/scientist type. So I guess I can attribute this to the scientific method — which allows for studies to draw different conclusions. But I just don’t know if I am willing to take that leap yet. Something more goes on with these types of studies, and I believe it has to do with politics for the most part — which is sort of sad because it would be nice to know the truth on these and other important issues.

I watched President Bush’s State of the Union address on Monday.

I won’t say what I thought of the speech itself, other than to say it seemed like a “Greatest Hits” compilation from previous speeches. I am, in many ways, a cynic when it comes to politicians.

But, what always irks me, is what seems to be the canned applause after every other word out of the President’s mouth!

I don’t understand it….

“Iraq” <Applause>

“Tax Rebate” <Applause>

“I had fish for dinner” <Applause>

It is not *real* applause. It is *political* applause. I am 100% convinced of that. They are only applauding because it is the “PC” thing to do. And it happens every 5 seconds!

I think they need a shortened version of the State of the Union Address with all of the applause taken out. It would shorten the time by at least 1/3, I bet. (If you are familiar with the NFL Network, they replay games with all the time between plays taken out and you can watch them in 1 hour). And that would definitely give us a better use of our time to, oh I don’t know, spend time with our family, stimulate the economy, sleep, etc.

I know, I know — I don’t have to watch/listen to the speech. I guess that is an option.