Pangloss

I do think we're going to have to review the growth of security operations and their budgets, and the affect they've had on both the bottom line and life in general (e.g. security at the airport). Unfortunately this particular growth has been embraced by both political parties. There's no momentum or even basic interest in changing it. So you're going to have to throw out sitting Republicans and Democrats alike if you want to address this.

It's a great comparison. The unfortunate rebuttal I've seen amongst conservatives is that the KKK no longer exists. It's unfortunate (IMO) because it doesn't recognize that this comparison shows two important things: That times when Christianity supported violent action are actually quite recent, and that the KKK was not eliminated through intolerance for Christianity! (Though I think the point is better made in plainer English, so as to be more clear to those not inclined towards science and math. But of course then it's not as catchy.) Yeah I enjoyed that piece and I sought to make hay of it on a conservative forum last night, but I stopped when I realized that it didn't have much substance. The problem is that that guy isn't really an owner of Fox News Channel, he just owns some stock. Yeah he's the second-largest stock owner, but it's still only something like 7%. Now if he sat on the board of directors or something then that might be useful. But that doesn't appear to be the case. I'm basically waiting to see if there is some evidence of his direct involvement in Fox News.

Yeah, but that's the same guy that said that Obama was born a Muslim because his father was Muslim and religion transfers with the father. (What, religion is a genetic disease now? Can't people decide what religion they want to be for themselves? And as if it matters anyway! Yeesh.) (Yeah I know, he was trying to explain why he felt that some people have the mistaken belief that Obama is a Muslim, but it was still a pretty knuckleheaded thing to say, IMO.) I wonder if the CTR crowd is overplaying its hand here. I've seen some interesting signs of backing off the last couple of days. Todd Shnitt (who follows Rush Limbaugh in our market) was speaking out today against the Koran burning project, and even Mark Levin (a particularly vile night-time CTR worm who never met a straw man he didn't like) was sounding kinda conciliatory about Rauf as I was driving home tonight (or maybe I just didn't listen long enough). And I'm pretty sure Laura Ingram is smarting from Jon Stewart's revelation that she praised the mosque project back in December -- she seemed a lot tamer subbing for BOR tonight. Also, Rush Limbaugh (though I only heard him briefly) seemed to be mainly focusing on liberal demonization of conservatives peripherally to the mosque story, rather than the mosque project itself. I'm thinking they may be feeling that they pulled the tiger's tale just a wee bit too hard on this one. But I could be wrong.

Thanks for passing that along, it was an interesting read. I think that whole bit about him traveling in the Middle East at the behest of the US government is interesting. He's out there trying to fight what 60 Minutes recently called "The Narrative" -- the belief in the Middle East that Americans hate Islam and are actively trying to wipe it out through the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama administration apparently came up with the idea of sending him over there before the mosque fury broke, and that strikes me as a brilliant move. I hope it isn't undermined by this controversy.

Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf gave a speech at Daniel Pearl's funeral. Some interesting quotes: Sure sounds like a bridge builder to me. Why anybody would cast aspersions on that, particularly without a shred of evidence, is beyond my comprehension.

Well as it turns out Rasmussen released some new polling data this morning that seems to address that very question. They sought to find out whether President Obama's odd injection into the debate has had an impact on the story and the upcoming election. And they compared it with data they collected before he waded in. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/many_more_now_following_mosque_controversy_and_don_t_like_it Ouch! The mosque controversy will definitely not make the highlight reel in Obama's presidential library. But I tend to agree with you that it's a short-term issue. George Will said yesterday on This Week that it's an "August issue" (referring to the traditional political news slump period when federal politicians are at home in their districts preparing for fall re-election runs) and will be forgotten in a month. And it's hard to argue against the notion that the election will be about jobs and the economy.

Images of Mohammad have already been effectively censored in the US. Good luck getting even an artist's rendering broadcast on any US television channel. And BTW, that was accomplished through intimidation, not government intervention. So is it really that outrageous for conservatives to wonder why they're always being asked to be sensitive towards Muslims, but feel like Muslims aren't being sensitive towards them about 9/11?

I liked the "arrested in absentia" bit.

Thanks for taking the time with that. It was an interesting read.

"Dirty tricks"? Well if he's gonna throw that out there then I guess I'm free to speculate. If it's one of those "she said she was 18 deals" then it's not like he didn't play a role (unless of course the CIA used its orbital mind control lasers -- gotta watch out for those!). But perhaps it's more along the lines of a complete fabrication. I guess we need more info. Perhaps we can find out from someone on the inside who has, oh I don't know, maybe access to certain documents....

Oh definitely.

You're forgetting about the politics of the hispanic vote. Karl Rove and Jeb Bush are on record objecting to the law on a "don't fight the battle this way" basis, and also questioning its constitutionality. They're not GWB, of course, but they're arguably the next best thing to a statement from the man himself. But their "opposition" might be likened to the way that President Obama "opposes" gay marriage, meaning that given the opportunity they wouldn't really fight it, and I agree that it's unlikely he would have had Gonzales sue the state over it. (Mr Skeptic's point above seems valid too.) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003631-503544.html It's funny you mention that, because I've rediscovered the show and think it's the funniest thing on television (not that that's saying a lot!). I guess it all depends on your POV. I gritted my teeth a lot during his broadcasts over the Bush years.

Jack Horkheimer, PBS's "The Star Gazer", passed away on Friday at the age of 72. Horkheimer was director of Miami's Space Transit Planetarium, and hosted his unique astronomy program every week for the past 31 years. The show featured current events in the sky for amateur astronomers, and was seen on PBS affiliates around the country. Any South Florida native will tell you that the planetarium is a staple of growing up here, and he no doubt inspired many children to pursue careers in all branches of science. His passing is an opportunity to recognize the tireless work of countless planetariums around the world and their undeniable influence on generation after generation of young minds. When I was active in amateur astronomy back in the 1980s, we used to check his show each week before going out to the observatory, and we always made an effort to check out anything he had mentioned. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Miamis-Star-Gazer-Dead-at-72-101195209.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38786992/ns/politics-white_house/ Same thing happened to Clinton, as I recall. He was pretty beaten-up by Monicagate and the impeachment trial towards the end of his 2nd term, as well as a small recession if memory serves, so he was due for a rise. But does Bush rate one? I don't know yet, it's too early for me, and I still disagree with him on too many subjects. It's suggested in this article that he would have opposed the Arizona immigration law and favored the "ground zero mosque", and I have the opposite views on those two issues. What do you all think?

Former Chairman of the Democratic Party and Presidential Candidate Howard Dean stepped into the quagmire today, saying that the "mosque" should be relocated, that it's insensitive, and that it's not about rights. He took issue with more extreme right-wing comments, but focused on a need for compromise. I think he's right, and this shows how strong the majority sentiment is on this issue. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51296-obama-and-the-nyc-ground-zero-mosque/page__pid__560638__st__60#entry560638

I thought this quote from that article was interesting:

Time Magazine ran an interesting piece today on "transforming Britain". I've been wondering what's happening over there with the new regime in place, and this article was informative, but of course it's early yet. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2011562,00.html

Yah, that's why I think it's still a reasonable question.

It's a reasonable question, but note that most Americans who are opposed to the building also recognize their right to build it. We know this from polling. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/13/fox-news-poll-percent-think-wrong-build-mosque-near-ground-zero/

Interesting story in the New York Times today looking at the auto industry's renewed shift to 4-cylinder engines. According to JD Power data cited in the article, 47% of all new cars sold in the US thus far in 2010 have 4-cylinder engines. This is up from just 30% in 2005 -- a very dramatic trend. Only 16% of new cars sold this year have had 8-cylinder engines in them. Some of this has to do with the "new normal" of gasoline -- stabilized at 2-3 bucks a gallon instead of the dollar or so many families were looking at when they made their previous car choices. But it matches a downward trend in SUV sizes (focus on "crossover" style rather than full-size) and an increase in 4-cylinder power that comes from various engineering improvements, including gasoline-direct injection, increased use of turbochargers, and improvements in electronic control over engines and transmissions. The kicker here is that today's 4-cylinder engines not only get better gas mileage, they also produce excellent horsepower. Just a few years ago it was unusual to see a 4-cylinder engine that produced 200 horsepower; today's it's common. My GM vehicle is a good example, producing 260 horsepower off a 2.0-liter four. Not long ago you'd have need a full eight cylinders to get that kind of power. And I still get 31 mpg on the freeway. Another factor in play is the gradually rising mileage requirements from the government. Some enthusiasts are complaining about that, but I think they're missing a key point: The fuel efficiency standards are averages. So long as most people are buying fuel-efficient cars, manufacturers will happily continue to make sports cars that look good in their advertising and suit the minority of buyers who really want them. Anyway, here's a link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/automobiles/15FOUR.html?pagewanted=1

I think it's worse than that. Many conservatives (many quite close to the center; people we can call "moderates") believe that Islam itself is the problem. Some of this is the product of news stories and mass-media stereotyping, and perhaps part of it's from the way American Muslims understandably prefer to fly under the radar. But there is a widespread feeling in this country that Islam is not a religion of peace, and that Sharia law and the Koran itself are at the root of the problem. Some say that the religion is broken and can be fixed; others feel that the problem cannot be corrected and that isolation and prevention is necessary. But either way there is some logic to the argument that Islam has not yet been "civilized" the way religions like Christianity have. A quick glance at the list of countries by Muslim population (link below) shows that 91.2% of the world's Muslims live in the Middle East and North Africa. Not exactly the most progressive part of the world, nor the wealthiest. (Though it may not be entirely fair to lump India into that boat, which contains about 10.3% of the total and is included in that 91.2%.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population An obvious flaw in this argument is exhibited by the 2.5 million American Muslims, who have remained quite peaceful with very few isolated exceptions, and perhaps to some greater or lesser extent (depending on how you look at the exceptions) the 38 million+ European Muslims (not including Turkey). If Islam is not yet "civilized" then why aren't they bombing stuff every day? It seems unlikely that they're just biding their time waiting for the "go" command from some imam in Qatar. So I think the argument that Islam has not yet been civilized is weak, but it's not hard to see something in the statistics and the apparent correlation with poverty and way of life. It seems to me that the answer is more in the poverty and local culture than in the religion. But if that's the case then it would be good to bolster that with some hard evidence and then show it to conservative Americans. (Like, I don't know, maybe through a Muslim outreach center placed in a spot where it might be noticed?)

I didn't say that he did. I said that he changed the level at which the discussion was taking place. He brought it to the forefront, and I'm not the only one who thinks so: ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/president-obamas-mosque-comments-add-issue-democrats-election/story?id=11406308 The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081605425.html?hpid=topnews New Jersey Star Ledger: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/am_top_news_ground_zero.html Etc. He has caused other politicians to have to engage on this issue. First up to the plate was Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who today took a decidedly different (if only in nuance) stance from the president, saying the mosque should not be built at that location. Others followed in a similar vein, while others spoke out in support of the mosque. Others tried to continue to hide, like New York's Chuck "I Killed IndyMac" Schumer, but they'll find that a lot harder to do now. ------------- Add: In watching Bill O'Reilly tonight I ran across something I thought you might find interesting given your discussion with Jackson. He appears to be misinformed about the motivation of majority opposition, and we have actual data on this. A Fox News poll asked not only whether people were opposed to the mosque, but whether they had the right to build it. 64% opposed the mosque, but 61% also recognized their right to build it. From that data we can generalize that for most Americans the complaint is not that they don't have the right, but that it's just a bad idea.

At any rate, here's what the president has accomplished by stepping into this issue: By confronting it head-on, instead of just letting Fox News rant about it, it now becomes a story with recognized national political scope. So now every seated Democrat in the country who is up for re-election this fall will be asked for their stance on this issue, instead of just a few ignorable crazies grabbing the mike at some rallies. And they'll be asked that question by a public that's nearly 70% opposed to the mosque's construction. That includes 54% of Democrats. That is why confrontation is a bad plan.

An interesting and thoughtful post, Marat. Okay, well, have fun storming the castle. I don't think you're wrong, I just think that as an approach it's a dead-end. But hey, I've been wrong before, and sometimes confrontation can produce results. On the contrary, I think you're absolutely right. Had the plan originally been for a building at 4 blocks the same knuckleheaded, sign-bearing types would have protested, and the same "legitimate" organizations would have leaped at the opportunity to support them. Then the compromise position would have been eight blocks. And I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that it is what it is.

I agree with swansont's question/point above, but I do think we should be careful not to get too hung up on what rights each party has and miss the point about sensitivity and common ground. This is a great battleground and the media is more than happy to feast away, but who wants to turn Ground Zero into Gaza Strip West? And what will that accomplish? Also, let's be honest about the underlying factors -- would any of you have supported building it in 2002? I'm sure some of you would have, but wouldn't some refrained, saying it was "too soon"? And if that's the case, surely there must be some who still consider it too soon today, and aren't their feelings worth considering? You know, the mosque's supporters aren't all sweetness and light here, trodden under the iron boot-heel of red state America. Not that anyone here said that, but I think it's worth noting because I think some here may not be aware of it. Some of those supporters are just as angry and combative as their opponents. They're mad about how Muslims have been treated since 9/11. Understandable, right? But that anger shows not only in some interviews but also in their plans. An "education center"? So they can keep telling stupid Americans how stupid we are? Yeah lemme go sign up for that! Is confrontation really the best we can do? To me this feels like it's going the same way as immigration reform. We have a clear path to progress here -- obvious common ground that everyone can easily agree on (put the center a few blocks farther away). But that won't happen, and the reason it won't happen is because of the spectacle of the fight. The stage is set, the lights are on, and the tickets have all been sold.