Once again, Republicans are united in their opposition to a bill (this time, the "Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010") that Democrats are attempting to pass through the Senate. It doesn't matter that the Democrats have a majority; there are now enough Republicans to successfully filibuster a bill even without the aid of a handful of moderate/conservative/sellout Democrat Senators/House members.
Conveniently, this allows Republicans/Libertarians (and anyone else who parrots the "bloated government" mantra) to use this as another example of bureaucratic inefficiency. The tactic works fine for Republican politicians, as they benefit from strengthening their argument that privatization is the answer to everything. Any blame regarding the stalled economic recovery is automatically passed on to "the party in control."
See also: Small businesses hold off spending while waiting for aid
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The "Ground Zero Mosque"
The proposed building of a cultural center/mosque near Ground Zero (or in it, depending on what exactly you consider Ground Zero) has sparked a heated debate over its appropriateness and its potential danger. Conservative pundits are selling their audiences on the idea that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (head of the Cordoba Initiative--the organization would be building the center) is an Islamic extremist with anti-American views and a potential anti-American agenda.
As far as I can tell, the allegedly liberal media hasn't done a very good job of explaining a few things;
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf;
* Aided the Bush administration in anti-terrorism efforts
* Has been outspoken against Islamic terrorism
* Is not the only one who's voiced dissent against American military involvement in the Middle East. In Marching Towards Hell, Michael Scheuer (form CIA Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station) makes the case that America has been backing unpopular dictatorships in the Middle East, and that this has driven anti-American sentiment in the middle east. Ron Paul also attempted to make this point in the Republican Primary "Debates" (it's odd that we only give our potential eventual a number of seconds to answer complicated questions--the result is a slinging of sound bytes that passes for a "debate") leaders only to lambasted by Rudy Guiliani who framed Paul's comment as though he were claiming America "invited" the attacks.
* Is actually a Sufi (a more mystical brand of Islam...Think of "The Qur'an meets The Secret") and is a liberal western appeaser by the standards of Osama Bin Laden
Also
* Islam is already part of the WTC area. It's not as though the area is currently devoid of Muslims and will remain so unless the cultural center is built.
* Some 9/11 family members themselves are in support of building this cultural center
* The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission has voted to allow it to be built
* The ‘Mosque' is actually a cultural center which indeed includes a mosque.
But it is inaccurate to merely refer to this as a building of a mosque
* As of right now (8/24/10) NO money has actually been raised for the project (despite rhetorical questions regarding where the money is coming from).
* The cultural center is actually 2 blocks from where the planes crashed. While it's true that the cultural center is being built in place of a building was hit by a plane on it's way to its eventual target, claiming it's being built "on ground zero" leaves with many, the impression that it's being built exactly where the planes ended up.
I personally don't believe that the cultural center introduces increases the threat of a new 9/11. I would argue that the real debate should be over the symbolism of this new building. How will it affect the 9/11 family members (there doesn't seem to be ‘one' answer since they themselves appear to be split on the matter). Will it empower and enable radical Jihadists? Will it be seen as a sign of weakness? Will it actually take the potential support away from Jihadists in the form of losing ground with more moderate muslisms?
As far as I can tell, the allegedly liberal media hasn't done a very good job of explaining a few things;
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf;
* Aided the Bush administration in anti-terrorism efforts
* Has been outspoken against Islamic terrorism
* Is not the only one who's voiced dissent against American military involvement in the Middle East. In Marching Towards Hell, Michael Scheuer (form CIA Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station) makes the case that America has been backing unpopular dictatorships in the Middle East, and that this has driven anti-American sentiment in the middle east. Ron Paul also attempted to make this point in the Republican Primary "Debates" (it's odd that we only give our potential eventual a number of seconds to answer complicated questions--the result is a slinging of sound bytes that passes for a "debate") leaders only to lambasted by Rudy Guiliani who framed Paul's comment as though he were claiming America "invited" the attacks.
* Is actually a Sufi (a more mystical brand of Islam...Think of "The Qur'an meets The Secret") and is a liberal western appeaser by the standards of Osama Bin Laden
Also
* Islam is already part of the WTC area. It's not as though the area is currently devoid of Muslims and will remain so unless the cultural center is built.
* Some 9/11 family members themselves are in support of building this cultural center
* The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission has voted to allow it to be built
* The ‘Mosque' is actually a cultural center which indeed includes a mosque.
But it is inaccurate to merely refer to this as a building of a mosque
* As of right now (8/24/10) NO money has actually been raised for the project (despite rhetorical questions regarding where the money is coming from).
* The cultural center is actually 2 blocks from where the planes crashed. While it's true that the cultural center is being built in place of a building was hit by a plane on it's way to its eventual target, claiming it's being built "on ground zero" leaves with many, the impression that it's being built exactly where the planes ended up.
I personally don't believe that the cultural center introduces increases the threat of a new 9/11. I would argue that the real debate should be over the symbolism of this new building. How will it affect the 9/11 family members (there doesn't seem to be ‘one' answer since they themselves appear to be split on the matter). Will it empower and enable radical Jihadists? Will it be seen as a sign of weakness? Will it actually take the potential support away from Jihadists in the form of losing ground with more moderate muslisms?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
