"Unity" Mosque Causes Deep Divisions

Ever since the media first started covering the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque," there has been a frenzy of strongly stated dissenting opinions.  Many on the left say we should accept the mosque at face value and accept it as part of the healing process.  Those on the right are suspicious of the imams and the financial backers' motives.  It's odd to see the left jumping to the mosque's defense and citing freedom of religion.  Aren't these the same people who started the Freedom From Religion Foundation?

While the left is certainly deserving of mockery for their selective outrage (would they feel the same way about a church being built close to the site where a believer bombed an abortion clinic?  Certainly they wouldn't tar an entire religion for the acts of one member, right?), that doesn't mean that the right is handling the issue well.  Some conservatives want to see building codes enforced to the point where the mosque is effectively blocked by the state.  Bad idea.  Republicans knew this ten years ago when they passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  RLUIPA, as it is awkwardly abbreviated,  was aimed at local government bodies using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations.  Land use laws are so byzantine that any building can be prevented from being built almost anywhere almost anytime.  However, by preventing the building of one mosque we would not only give government a stick to use against thousands of churches but we would also not be living up to the values that Americans hold dear. 

So does that mean the mosque has to be built?  Not necessarily.  Public pressure is still a legitimate way to deter the mosque being built.  To tar those who oppose the mosque as right-wing racists is lunacy.  A majority (52%) of New Yorkers oppose the mosque and Big Apple residents are not exactly known for their conservative bona fides.  This kind of pressure was legitimate when Jews opposed the monastery at Auschwitz.  Although no one doubted the Catholic nuns had the best of intentions in praying for those who perished in the Holocaust, Jews felt the ground was sacred to them and demanded the monastery be moved.  Pope John Paul II obliged and agreed it was "hallowed ground."  Even without suspecting the imam's motives, there are legitimate objections to the mosque.  

And for those who would like to take a closer look at Imam Rauf's motives, he is putting fuel on the fire.  A mere 19 days after the attack he contends that the US was an accessory to 9/11.




The imam also was caught on tape saying that America has more blood on its hands than Al Qaeda although the video has been quickly pulled by the copyright owner.  Also for someone who claims unity is his goal, he seems fine with opposing more than 50% of New Yorkers.  When it comes to funding he says he will not accept money from terrorist organizations but when asked if Hamas and Hezbollah were terrorist organizations, he refuses to answer. 

Whether you question his motives or just think that he should voluntarily be respectful of the land he is choosing to build on, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose the mosque but if he chooses to press on, I would rather have a mosque at Ground Zero than a black mark on our history of the government not impinging on religious freedom.

Media Being Left By The Wayside

Americans have always relied on the media to keep tabs on those in power.  It now seems we need someone to keep tabs on the media.  

During the 2008 primaries an online listserv group of liberal journalists going by the name Journolist plotted to cover up the Jeremiah Wright story in an effort to boost Obama into the Presidency.  Sound like a nutty right wing conspiracy?  Not so.  According to records obtained by Tucker Carlson of the Daily Caller this actually happened.  

During the debates when Obama was asked by George Stephanopoulos, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”   Richard Kim of the Nation fumed on Journolist that Stephanopoulos was “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent went even further. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”  He continued: “I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a right winger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously, I mean this rhetorically.”  I guess I should be thankful he only meant it "rhetorically."  

As if journalists showing their already present biases weren't enough Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun, suggested “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?”

Luke Mitchell, a then editor at Harpers magazine, even suggests openly coordinating coverage in favor of the Democrats.  “...It seems to me that a concerted effort on the part of the left partisan press could be useful. Why geld ourselves? A lot of the people on this list work for organizations that are far more influential than, say, the Washington Times.  Open question: Would it be a good use of this list to co-ordinate a message of the week along the lines of the GOP? Or is that too loathsome? It certainly sounds loathsome. But so does losing!”

This was not just a group of disaffected D-listers either.  Its 400 member roster included Joe Klein of Time Magazine, Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker and CNN, Dave Weigel of the Washington Post, and was founded by Ezra Klein also of the Washington Post.  

Is there any wonder every poll done on the media in the last 30 years has shown that most people believe the media tilts left?  But this is even beyond that.  In his 2001 book, Bias, Bernard Goldberg exhaustively proved a left bias but chalks it up to everyone cribbing the same big sources for headlines such as the New York Times.  He stressed that although 99% of media lean left, there is no grand conspiracy.  Goldberg has now been making the rounds on talk radio shows saying that this is new and very troubling.  He conjectures that the media is no longer 99% liberal with the rise of Fox News which presents points of view previously only heard on the AM dial.  The liberal media realizes it is losing its great monopoly on TV and won't go down without a fight.  While some claim that Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party, there is no evidence of that.  On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that the mainstream media is an arm of the Democratic Party. 

Government In Your Bathroom and Car

Buying your first house and moving out of state is a unique experience.  Maybe I just feel that way because that is where I am in life but to be sure there are more than a few things to be learned in the process and almost as many to be detested.  Most are the result of government intervention into that which they have no reason to be involved with. 

Shortly after moving in I learned that the showerhead didn't work.  Not a problem, I ran to Home Depot and bought a new one.  As I perused the instructions I found an interesting statement along the bottom in small type:  This product meets federal standards for GPM and psi.  GPM, as I learned later, stands for gallons per minute.  Federal law decrees that showerheads may have a maximum of 2.5 GPM and at no greater pressure than 80 psi.  Fortunately the law was largely unenforced except for those unlucky to sell nonconforming showerheads, such as Paul Coombs of Zoe Industries,  in states that had laws that mirrored the federal statute.  However the Wall Street Journal reports that this could all change soon.  Some "rain-fall" showerheads emit as much as 12 GPM.  Some showerheads that aid disabled people could also be in violation.  Many older units installed in schools and gyms could also run afoul of the law.  The proponents of the law claim this will save water.  It might, although some people may choose to take longer showers after turning in their nonstandard heads.  It would also undoubtedly reduce water usage to pass a law saying no one may shower for longer than 15 minutes, or to limit people to one shower a day.  A faucet that leaks twice per minute will waste over 100 gallons of water a year, maybe the government should mandate random home inspections as well.  As always the government is making a token effort to control people's behavior in one specific and business unfriendly fashion while not doing much at all to solve the problem.  I wouldn't want a "rain-fall" showerhead even if it was legal.  I fixed all the leaky faucets in my house when I moved in not because I am worried about the planet but because I didn't want to pay for 100 gallons of water a year that I was gaining no benefit from.  Water costs money and many would choose to use a showerhead that is economical.  Do we really need a law that would prevent those willing to pay a little more for a higher volume of water per minute from having it?

Shortly after replacing the water head, I had a similar situation with my new toilet.  My old one was an older model which used 3.5 gallons per flush.  New toilets must be "low-flow" toilets that only use 1.6 gallons per flush.  Although it is not illegal to operate an older toilet, it is illegal to install them if your old one breaks.   "Low-flow" toilets are more economical but less effective.  Once again, it is a choice that is taken away from consumers by government busybodies. 

Federalism is one of the great things about America.  Each state can pass its own laws independently of the federal government as long as they do not contradict eachother.  The framers envisioned the federal government to pass basic laws and leave the details to the states.  Unfortunately, the federal government got in the business of details and states now regulate even further.  After returning to the DMV for my license plates, I was confused.  I was only issued one plate.  I had previously had two in New Jersey.  Only a rear plate is necessary for most states, I came to realize.  Problem is when I bought my car in New Jersey, the plate holder was mounted to bumper.  After removing the New Jersey plates, as is required by law, I ended up with this:

I am not really a car person so I'm not furious that my car has prominent nail holes in it now but why do states regulate cars down to the details of numbers of plates?  What about cars sold to out of state used car lots that don't have matching laws?  A cop trails someone before pulling them over, so what is the need of the front plate?  It's OK though, I can now hang a vanity plate on the front, I was thinking of something like NOCHANGE in this holder:

From libertarian to Libertarian

Since about 2005, I've considered myself a libertarian.  The lower case "l" designates that ideologically I am in the camp but not necessarily a member of the Libertarian party.  Since I could vote, I have always been a registered Republican.  It's not that I was hedging my bet or being indecisive or using the libertarian title as a way to be a conservative without being written off as a Republican during the Bush years, it was simply that as a registered Republican I could vote in their primary whereas the Libertarians had no primary.

Recently I moved to Delaware and had the pleasure of going to the DMV to get my license, registration, title, and inspection transferred over.  As I walked through the doors of the dingy government building, a emotionless bureaucrat mumbled "3 hour wait" as he handed me a number.  I got back into my car and drove around the previously unexplored area for an hour, picked up lunch, cleaned out my car, and even thumbed through my car manual a few dozen times.  As I returned to the lobby and watched the numbers tick away (still 100+ from my own), I couldn't help thinking about how some states had allowed the private sector to compete for government contracts to provide services.  I couldn't think of any time in my life where a restaurant had told me they had a 3 hour wait but somehow when government gets involved, it's not only accepted but expected.

Finally my number is called and I approach the stall.  "What do you need today?" the bureaucrat asks.

"Everything," I reply, "just moved from New Jersey and I need my  license, registration, title, and inspection transferred over."

The bureaucrat smiles as if he knows I might try to reach over the stall and throttle him in the next few seconds, "I can help you with your license," he starts, "I would normally give you another number to start in the title line but it's 4:45 and we close at 4:30.  I'm not allowed to issue any more numbers after closing time."

Incredulously I reply, "But I've been here since 1 PM."

The bureaucrat's smile became more strained, "I'm really sorry but you'll have to come back.  Let's take care of your license though.  Please look into the camera but don't smile"

"No risk of that," I deadpanned.

"Would you like to become an organ donor or register to vote?"  He meekly asked.

"Yes to both," I curtly responded.

"Party affiliation?"  He inquired.

"Libertarian," I said with no hesitation.  I hadn't planned to change from Republican but as I looked around the DMV and wondered why the hell anyone would trust government to register vehicles, or even more surprisingly run a national health care system or write tax law or run the school system or run the park system or do any damn thing, it was clear I had moved beyond the bounds of the Republican Party.  

I collected my license, left the DMV cursing and got into my still unregistered-in-Delaware car and drove home.  A few days later I received a voting card in the mail:

I couldn't hardly believe it except that I should have expected it, they misspelled "Libertarian."  I guess I am a "Libertarin" at least until my license expires in 5 years.  Yeah, I truly believe government cannot do anything right.  That's why I went from a libertarian to to a Libertarian...or a Libertarin depending on who you ask.