I guess the mosque issue is important; I guess a better way to put that would be, I guess the mosque stirs up emotions but really isn’t that important. The controversy seemingly can be solved with just a single sentence:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Unfortunately, it’s not –that- simple; I mean the 2nd and 4th Amendments are pretty straight forward and are often used in arguments, but people ignore them. We can express our views and religion in many ways that is almost endless, but the question is what is appropriate? I asked Glenn Greenwald on twitter if his stance for freedom of speech and expression extends to other amendments. I did so by asking a simple question such as “do we have the right to cull gun ownership in areas where crime has occurred? (after all what’s the difference between culling one Amendment over another?)” and “would it be ok to build a gun store across the street from columbine?” Unfortunately he never addressed those questions, but instead asked me a question of “is it ok to stop a church from being built across the street from an abortion clinic or near Oklahoma City’s bombing site (the last one doesn’t make any sense)?” I wanted and should have replied, “no, but you or your cohorts probably would.” Instead I insisted that was unrelated to my argument, and I was merely pointing out his double standard…for which he asked me the question again. At that point I gave up on trying to convince someone who is more bullheaded than myself. The 1st Amendment argument helps to create a pedestal for defenders, but I’m not so sure that’s the argument that people have been using against it; some are making a stink because Glenn Beck wants to hold a rally near where MLK did a speech and on 8/28 because it’s on “hallowed ground”…how is this any different? It’s not, as Greta Van Susteren of all people points out.

Remember…the Muslims in NYC have a First Amendment right to build a mosque but most Americans don’t want it…and you have to ask the wisdom of the Muslims to push the issue. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean you should. My view? No mosque at ground zero and Glenn should move his event.

It does not help heal the country on so many fronts if we poke a stick in eyes.

The issue I have with the mosque doesn’t really involve the mosque, but people who support the mosque having double standards. Most people protesting the mosque aren’t arguing on the validity of the 1^st Amendment, in that no one (excluding Newt Gingrich) has suggested the government censor or not allow them to build there. The thing is, this happens all the time under the guise of social agendas. Land is confiscated, cities have zoning laws. Since we are arguing on the basis of location, I believe all avenues should be opened; because after all this is about property rights and freedom of religion. Yet, the simple fact is that you could never have an ammunition store across the street from a high school, you could never have a strip club across the street from a church; remember the “ground zero cross,” Trump’s American Flag? Those were just small examples, that just so happened to land on the front page. We (as a society) selectively censor people’s speech and property rights, and it’s not until we agree with someone’s position that we defend their rights; we call this censorship “societal norms.” But that’s not how the Constitution works, the simple fact is that the people supporting the mosque (in most instances) are just as hypocritical about 1^st Amendment rights as people like Newt Gingrich.

Unfortunately, this angle will never be explored, because both sides are so caught up in their own world view that they both deny their own hypocrisy. To me the people have every right to build the mosque, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Just like I should have the right to build an ammo store across the street from Columbine, but that’s not a good idea. I think the whole idea boils down to what you think is considerate, if where you draw the lines of society norms.

In other news, Greg Gutfeld from Fox News Red Eye, says he’s going to build a gay bar beside the mosque (which really isn’t so much a mosque as a community center for Muslims.) I support his endeavor, because he has the right to do so, it’s not a good idea because it will likely offend people…but I think that is the moral question that Gutfeld is trying to raise…and one that almost everyone has ignored. In a world, and a political world that lives on political correctness, it’s interesting to see the sides reversed.

Quick Update:

The argument of “hallowed ground” I guess doesn’t apply if you’re defending the “hallowed ground?” Newt? Anyone? An anti-mosque rally on 9/11 ? Really?

Liberal outlet the Daily Kos  today announced that it was filing a law suit against Research 2000.

I have just published a report by three statistics wizards showing, quite convincingly, that the weekly Research 2000 State of the Nation poll we ran the past year and a half was likely bunk.

Since the moment Mark Grebner, Michael Weissman, and Jonathan Weissman approached me, I took their concerns seriously and cooperated fully with their investigation. I also offered to run the results on Daily Kos provided that they 1) fully documented each claim in detail, 2) got that documentation peer reviewed by disinterested third parties, and 3) gave Research 2000 an opportunity to respond. By the end of last week, they had accomplished the first two items on that list. I held publication of the report until today, because I didn’t want to partake in a cliche Friday Bad News Dump. This is serious business, and I wasn’t going to bury it over a weekend.

We contracted with Research 2000 to conduct polling and to provide us with the results of their surveys. Based on the report of the statisticians, it’s clear that we did not get what we paid for. We were defrauded by Research 2000, and while we don’t know if some or all of the data was fabricated or manipulated beyond recognition, we know we can’t trust it. Meanwhile, Research 2000 has refused to offer any explanation. Early in this process, I asked for and they offered to provide us with their raw data for independent analysis — which could potentially exculpate them. That was two weeks ago, and despite repeated promises to provide us that data, Research 2000 ultimately refused to do so. At one point, they claimed they couldn’t deliver them because their computers were down and they had to work out of a Kinkos office. Research 2000 was delivered a copy of the report early Monday morning, and though they quickly responded and promised a full response, once again the authors of the report heard nothing more.

It was apparent from most poll results that something was amiss, but what you likely won’t hear from all media outlets is that the infamous poll showing that the “right wing” was full of “wing nuts” also goes by the way side. If you’ll note, the poll which is quite often cited by liberals was conducted by Research 2000. Read more…

In response to this

It comes at an opportune time, ahead of the looming elections, in which our political philosophies and principals are put to the test through practice. One such test involves the mosque slated to be built in the region; and while supporting other’s rights to express their distaste with the project, I do not support their views of not allowing other’s similar rights.

The opinion which struck me as the most odd in this debate, was purported Tea Party leader Lou Ann Zelenik’s claims that, “Until the American Muslim community…condemn(s) those who want to destroy our civilization…we are not obligated to open our society to any of them.” Coming from the conservative libertarian viewpoint, I found this statement and those that accompany it, to be hypocritical at best. If such a political movement or a purported leader of it, which prides itself on the Constitution, openly threatens the Constitutional rights of fellow citizens, I am quite concerned as to how this person could be trusted with the powers to act on such threats.

It’s not just Mrs. Zelenik’s views though; upon further examination it has been an uproar among, what appears to be, a majority of residence. But lest I remind these individuals, that this right which has been afforded to them to show their outrage, also affords those in the Islamic faith the right to express their religious views without government abridging it. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.”

This is not a country of one religion or one creed, if it were we would not be free. All liberty is individual; it is not of collective ideals, but of individual ones. Those of the Islamic faith are not asking that you or I convert to Islam, but in many cases, the Christian view is being forced upon them with government as its sword. You would be hard fit to find even two Christians of which agree upon every issue, nor two Republicans, nor two Democrats. If we pick at the seams of our free society through our collective ideas we will do nothing but undermine, not only the rights of others, but of ourselves. As Jesus once said, those who live by the sword will die by the sword; and in this case, many threaten the rights to both expression and of property as they wield the power to do so; a power which may not always be there.

In short, wearing the flag does not make you a patriot any more than wearing the cross makes you a Christian, nor does flogging others for their unconstitutional acts, while threatening the violation of others’ rights make you a Constitutionalist. I believe that people of all views in the matter, should take a step back and ask themselves if they are swimming with the stream or standing steadfast with the principals that they tout in their own name.

This is a poem first published in 1705 from “The Fable of the Bees or Public Vices, Publick Benefits,” by Bernard Mandeville; it connects well with the the latter (in time frame) two of the past three posts about what makes the world go ’round.

The Grumbling Hive: or, Knaves turn’d Honest.
A Spacious Hive well stockt with Bees,
That liv’d in Luxury and Ease;
And yet as fam’d for Laws and Arms,
As yielding large and early Swarms;
Was counted the great Nursery
Of Sciences and Industry.
No Bees had better Government,
More Fickleness, or less Content:
They were not Slaves to Tyranny,
Nor rul’d by wild Democracy;
But Kings, that could not wrong, because
Their Power was circumscrib’d by Laws.
T h e s e Insects liv’d like Men, and all
Our Actions they perform’d in small:
They did whatever’s done in Town,
And what belongs to Sword or Gown:
Tho’ th’ Artful Works, by nimble Slight
Of minute Limbs, ’scap’d Human Sight;
Yet we’ve no Engines, Labourers,
Ships, Castles, Arms, Artificers,
Craft, Science, Shop, or Instrument,
But they had an Equivalent:
Which, since their Language is unknown,
Must be call’d, as we do our own.
As grant, that among other Things,
They wanted Dice, yet they had Kings;
And those had Guards; from whence we may
Justly conclude, they had some Play;
Unless a Regiment be shewn
Of Soldiers, that make use of none.
Va s t Numbers throng’d the fruitful Hive;
Yet those vast Numbers made ’em thrive;
Millions endeavouring to supply
Each other’s Lust and Vanity;
While other Millions were employ’d,
To see their Handy-works destroy’d;
They furnish’d half the Universe;
Yet had more Work than Labourers.
Some with vast Stocks, and little Pains,
Jump’d into Business of great Gains;
And some were damn’d to Sythes and Spades,
And all those hard laborious Trades;
Where willing Wretches daily sweat,
And wear out Strength and Limbs to eat: Read more…

(Who the heck is Ward Churchill?)

It would be easily construed that Ward Churchill committed an act of tyranny on September 11^th, 2001; it would be even easier to point to his flawed statistics and flagrant language as unjust libel. That being said, the idea of patriotism is called into question, interrogated and beaten into a form that agrees with our perception of justice and reality.

All told, 2,740 people were killed on that fateful day, but to narrow a life down to a number is inhuman. No, 2,740 individual mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, friends, and lovers died innocently by the hands of men bound by a narrow vision and the perception that human life is not equal. Joseph Stalin once said, “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” On September 11^th, 2001, the nation was shocked by a tragedy, a nation united by a notion of humanity, courage and the human spirit. As the smoke cleared, the same did not come of our own hearts, eyes, and judgment; instead we vowed revenge, to destroy those who took a staggering statistic of 2,740 lives.

Ward Churchill, while writing his rant, may have missed his own point. It becomes apparent while reading his paper that the very idea of revenge, of his own cries for humanity, undercut his own perception of that very idea. Calling into question the ideas of your country, of its direction and moral perception is very patriotic, that is indeed true; but just as the idea of protecting your citizens turns to scorn the lives of others with bombs, so do the words of Ward Churchill scorn the lives of the of those lost on September 11^th, 2001. The ghosts of our past, always come to hit us back as though there is some circular balance to the Universe, some underlying message in the response to our actions. Whether it is karma or sinful revenge, the question arises of what came first, the chicken, or the egg. Why should there be repercussion if there is nothing to sway that outcome, why fight if there is no reason.

Upon the attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan, can it be said that those innocent lives lost were justified by the means of revenge. Furthermore, could the attacks against the World Trade Centers and Pentagon justify the innocent lives lost in Middle East by the hands of Americans? Can it be said that the ends truly justify the means? Perhaps, we should take this lesson from Ward Churchill’s paper, and ignore his inhuman judgment of bringing a human life down to a statistical anomaly. The point we should call to attention, is not what is justification, but rather why are we killing our brethren, for money, for oil, for justice, for God? What are these but human thoughts that are so inhuman, that it’s hard to believe that they in all of their mystery are pure human nature.

It’s surprising, that we the western world with our advancements, fail to evolve enough to see that the mirror and the outside world aren’t so different. Our forefathers have written a document describing the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; it’s written in ink, but sadly disobeyed in blood. Should our Declaration of Independence not only fall in the order of our country’s freedom, but for the freedom on humanity as a whole? Should that not be the mission of The United States of America? Not to kill innocent lives with scornful revenge but to truly show the world freedom by allowing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to prevail in all cultures through peace? That is what one should call truly American and divine.

All in all, Ward Churchill was a jerk…and yet still there are many more jerks out there like him. You can be against war, as I am, and not become just as bad as your perceived enemy…and it is often even 9 years later that people on the from the anti-war perspective can justify the deaths of Israelis or Americans, or Spanish, just for their mere involvement. The circle will be broken when someone walks away, and even now there is a war of words between anti-war and pro-war, and really it’s just a small scale war where no one really gets hurt; Easier to argue on the sidelines than enter the playing field.

Ashton has been getting some bad press as of late because of his mocking of “drill baby drill,” when he said:

“If you could go back to the Republican national convention and look the guys in the eyes that were saying, ‘DRILL DRILL DRILL’, at the Republican national convention, those guys, there you go, that’s what we got, like, we did it, we drilled drilled drilled.” …

“But at the end of the day the truth is, is like, we got to think about the world we live in, I mean we have to be conscious. This is like not a right, it’s a privilege to be on this land and using its resources and we have to be smart about it.”

You wouldn’t have thought I’d take this angle, but we should really leave Ashton alone about this. Sure, he drove a 14,500 lb. Navistar CXT that gets 7 MPG; but I ask you this, how else is Ashton supposed to haul around his huge ego? Did you ever think of that? Do you think he can just jump in a Ford Fiesta and get around town? I think not, and maybe you should be more understanding. So, anyhow he’s hauling big cargo, and that requires a huge truck that gets 7 mpg.

I won’t stop there, I have yet another reason why he’s a good environmentalist, he’s using a used model. Think about it people, he could be out chasing tail of young 20 somethings but instead he has settled for the 48 year old Demi Moore, who was previously married to Bruce Willis. So really he’s actually doing more for the environment than any of us, maybe you should look at yourself before you cast a stone. Ashton is a great person, so great of a person that his memorial of Britney Murphy included 1 tweet using bad grammar and text speak…which in this day and age is the most you can of someone as busy as Ashton.

It’s a popular game now, seeing how much bad press you can give BP in a given day; and as I sit and let Keith Olbermann’s program run in the background I’m reminded of one thing: Keith Olbermann is a pompous moron…and the campaign against BP is much worse than BP’s campaign. While that may be two things, it really doesn’t matter since numbers don’t mean anything to the anti-BP crowd. Sure BP messed up (as did the government) and and now there is a huge pool of bumbling crude floating around in the ocean (a pool of oil which is nothing compared to what the U.S. consumes on a daily basis.) However, people have allowed themselves to become so full of crap regarding BP that it makes BP look clean. Here me out. Apparently BP running advertisements takes their attention away from cleaning up the oil spill…since I guess the PR team should be out there with a mop and bucket. I guess with this logic, Apple’s spending on their advertising campaign takes quality away from their product and NBC advertising their news takes away from the quality of their news. We should all know this is total horsecrap, yet just the other day the media began doubling down; I read a story where a media outlet has claimed that BP buying keyword advertisements on search engines is “clogging the flow of information.” Apparently BP is now a magical entity that erases all search terms under the actual advertisement and blocks out the sun as well.

Not only are people making absolutely no sense in how BP spends it’s PR money, which has nothing to do with its ability in cleaning up oil, but now everyone is an expert on oil. That’s right, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Jim Bob who lives on Main St all know more than the engineers who have been doing this their entire life. All I hear in the media currently is “why isn’t BP doing this,” of course this question is asked by a talking head who clearly doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Roger Ebert said BP was downplaying something that may only end in them nuking the oil well, he no doubt got this information from some pseudo-scientist who was on The Today Show or something. Which brings me to a larger point, being an “expert” on TV doesn’t make you an “expert” it means you’ve been on TV before and the network pulled you from their Rolodex of scientists who have done well on their networks before. Watching Maddow tell me about the evils of oil, while riding around in the wetland on a gasoline powered boat…just doesn’t make much sense. If Keith Olbermann and his guests are experts on oil, or politics for that matter, then Dick Morris is a genius and knows the meaning of life and the universe (not that Olbermann is the only one doing it, even Fox is doing it…and I thought they were “pro-corporation”).

On a side note: Olbermann has declared BP to be “BS” which is very clever since I call MSNBC, BSNBC.

They have a lot more in common than you might think, let’s examine for a moment. By the way, this isn’t to say that conservatives are impervious to such adolescent thoughts, but for the time being I’ll focus on progressive because it’s far worse.

I always find it ironic when “liberals” make fun of “red neck conservatives” because they are stupid for saying things like “they attacked us, so let’s go bomb their ass,” or “they took our jobs!” They see these as moronic because it turns a complex issue into a black and white; however liberals are so much worse at doing this. Take for example healthcare, what is the general argument for universal healthcare from liberals? I’ll tell you what it is, “healthcare is good, so the government needs to give everyone free healthcare.” If you challenge this view, you always get “well Europe has it!” That not exactly a strong argument, and if you challenge that you always get the “well, you just don’t care about people, you’re turning people into numbers, this is a social issue.”(even though economics is a social issue)

Well, surprise, that is the exact same argument the people you just called “red necks” just used, so congratulations. Of course liberals who read this would say I’m creating a “straw man” argument, which would be a good point if they weren’t jumping to bold conclusions in their own head. I always find that people who accuse you of creating a “straw man” has actually created one well before you showed up. Anyhow more to the point, this becomes a black and white argument…as saying that someone else doesn’t “care” like you is a crock. I have news for you, just because you believe you have found an easily implemented “let’s just give people free stuff” argument doesn’t mean you care more than someone with a more complex solution. Life experience can teach you a lot, but so can not being a giant ass jacket with ear plugs.

The fact of the matter is that progressive arguments like environmentalism, healthcare, war, regulation all sounds like something in the journal of  12 year old girl. It’s all about you and your feelings. War bad, end war; healthcare good, give people healthcare; trees good, don’t hurt trees. This all sounds so simple, and it -is- simple and they are good causes but the foundation is incredibly weak. These arguments are weak for many reasons namely because they assume that you’re the only person thinking or caring about these issues. Look, no one actually actively seeks war, and no one actively seeks to destroy the environment just because they disagree with you, but unfortunately the world is more complex…and much bigger than you. This is how you can create an argument in liberalism, “oh, healthcare is good, you agree? Yet you don’t think it should be free?” “ok, so why do you hate poor people?” See how easy that was?

It’s most annoying, because if you’re arguing with a progressives the best defense they have isn’t logic it’s some wisecrack from The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. The best way to win over the youth isn’t with logical thinking it’s with making them feel like they’re “cool,” so popshots are extremely effective…which is why most college students are decidedly liberal. It’s not that they are “more educated” it’s that it’s in the college culture to have these views. The truth is that these arguments are so simple to hold that they are easier to defend…because hey, who can argue that people shouldn’t get medical treatment? Not that anyone was arguing against that, only that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. And otherwise if you disagree then you’re obviously “immature,” and need to see “the real world.”

I got in an argument a good while back with a good friend which effectively ruined the friendship…and somehow he believed my libertarianism was college induced…even though libertarianism is shunned in college and the very argument he had adopted sounded like something picked up out of a sociology class from some liberal professor. I’ve been called a “capitalist pig,” “racist” among other things in college classes merely for stating that there was such a thing as “regulatory capture” and that the welfare system has done nothing to help the black community. Perhaps my beliefs are college induced, but only because I’ve had to listen to mindless babble and liberal circle jerks while in class; I’d drink the Kool-Aid but that’s not high class enough, I should drink a espresso and read some Chomsky. As Greg Gutfeld once said, “liberals made me conservative, and conservatives made me libertarian.” Perhaps I should keep my mouth shut until I’m cultured enough to see the good in liberal life, because by that time I’ll be fighting for something I once had but don’t have anymore because some ass jacket “meant well” and totally screwed everything up.

I’m just as anti-war as the next person, in fact I don’t think anyone wants war other than the people who profit from it but don’t have the risks associated with it. That being said, the anti-war movement has been growing rather annoying; I believe that the “golden rule” is a great association with avoidance of war. I think that the occupation in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq is something that we would not tolerate if it were on our land…but here comes the inconsistency. They come toward criticisms of Israel, in all of my experience with anti-war propagation I have always heard that “what if it was in your country” argument, and that is very logical…but I ask this:

What if Iran was where Mexico was? Would you then find it so preposterous to threaten military action if they achieved Nuclear weapons? Specifically if they had already threatened to wipe us off the face of the earth? I don’t agree with Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, but you have to be consistent in your argument. The fact of the matter is, if Ahmadinejad were at our door with a nuke, he’d already be dead. That is something that no one is willing to admit in the anti-war movement, but once you are at the point of the sword your entire perception changes. So I find it very difficult to tell Israel that they can’t defend themselves, when we would do the exact same thing if it were our neighbor making the threats. Basically I’m getting tired of the bashing of Israel because the argument against their potential actions against Iran do not logically match the argument that is being used against the notion of war in general.

Instead of defending Iran, shouldn’t we be arguing against their execution of gays? political dissenters? Too many people have been calling out U.S. and Israeli propaganda, while falling victim to Iran’s.

Some people say the ole, “slippery slope” argument is stupid, misguided, or whatever…however, they’d be wrong. Europe already has tons of government given rights, like healthcare, housing, etc; well, when you get one “right” under your belt, soon you want more. I’m waiting for people to say I’m on the “wrong side of history” on this too.

From TimesOnline:

An overseas holiday used to be thought of as a reward for a year’s hard work. Now Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidised by the taxpayer.

Under the scheme, British pensioners could be given cut-price trips to Spain, while Greek teenagers could be taken around disused mills in Manchester to experience the cultural diversity of Europe.

The idea for the subsidised tours is the brainchild of Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry, who was appointed by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.

The scheme, which could cost hundreds of millions of pounds a year, is intended to promote a sense of pride in European culture, bridge the north-south divide in the continent and prop up resorts in their off-season.