BY GARY SWITLING
Senior Writer, International Bureau
August 27, 2010

BAGHDAD--Plans to build a mosque in the heart of Baghdad have come under substantial criticism, as critics have claimed that the planned Muslim worship center directly across the Tigris River from the fortified Green Zone is insensitive to Americans.

The mosque is planned by the Imam Mohamed Al Sharif, who recently returned from several years' exile in Jordan to escape the violence and sectarian strife that had enveloped the war-torn country over the past couple of years. The building is planned to be built on the site of a former mosque where Al Sharif's father had once presided. That mosque was destroyed by an errant missile during the 2003 "Shock and Awe" air campaign, and claimed the life of Al Sharif's father and ten other people.

But critics claim that the mosque is insensitive to the Americans who liberated Iraq from years of dictatorial rule. Pam Geller, President of the recently founded Stop Islamization of Iraq (SIOI), pointed out that the mosque is being planned near the sites of several improvised explosive device attacks on U.S. troops. Even more disturbing, Geller said, was that American defense contractors and visiting oil executives staying in the Green Zone would be subjected to the daily calls to prayer from the mosque's loudspeakers.

"It's nothing but an affront and insult," Geller said. "America has graced this country with freedom and liberty, and in return Americans would be forced to be exposed to these foreign and dangerous religious views and expressions."

Others agreed with Geller's assessment. "Americans certainly wouldn't stand for a Shinto Shrine being built at Hiroshima, or a Native American Cultural Center being erected at Wounded Knee," stated former Speaker of the House and possible 2012 Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich on "Fox News Sunday." "So why should they be expected to go along with plans to erect a Muslim worship center in the middle of a city that Americans have liberated and provided their people with the opportunity of future petroleum partnerships? The answer is, they won't."

Recent polls support Gingrich's position, as an AP/Pew poll found that 62% of Americans opposed the building of the controversial mosque in Iraq's capital city. Those interviewed questioned the rationale behind the location of the proposed center.

"They could have built it anywhere," said Terry Bradford, an Ohio resident who was visiting Washington for Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally on the National Mall. "Heck, for all I care they could have built it smack dab in the middle of New York City, where the Constitution of this country gives them the right to practice their religion wherever and however they so choose. But they didn't. They chose to build it in the place that they know it would hurt Americans the most."

American Muslim groups, however, took a different view. "What?" said Ibrahim Ali, chairman of the American-Islamic Relations Organization. "Seriously....what? Are you kidding me? Is this a joke or something?"

Geller said her organization was also keeping an eye on possible attempts to build mosques in Cairo, Kabul and Tehran, and vowed to fight tooth and nail if those plans go forward as expected.

"We're not going to stop until every American is free from this harassment and persecution," she said. "Our troops didn't risk their lives so that Iraqis could worship or sacrifice goats or virgins or whatever they do at mosques."

More at link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gM5TjSOQ48

And for months, the vote I legally cast and the votes that nearly 2 million other Florida Democrats cast were was not counted towards tally for the nomination. That in the end, the national DNC did what it should have done months prior still did not excuse their inaction and ineptitude in the situation.

So what does this have to do with the op? Well, I don't want turn this too personal so as Precious Roy said a few threads down a review of the archives will explain it all. Needless to say, the level of apologetics, spin, feigned outrage and blame shifting occurred on a daily basis was quite unfortunate. Except that to try to shift blame from the national DNC (where blame was proper) to the various campaigns or congresspersons or state legislators simply because one could not fathom the fallibility of one's political idol in the situation shouldn't have occurred. And if someone wishes to cast one's self as representative of the principles and ideals of the "left of the left" portion of the Democratic Party, then one must first remove the plank out of one's own eye. And after 2000, and living in Florida in 2000 there are some positions that ought not to be taken.

January 29, 2008 I go into my precinct that was assigned to me by my county's supervisor of elections. Had I gone in the day before or the day after the polls would be closed. I showed the precinct workers--agents of the supervisor of elections, which I pay my taxes to support--my voter's registration card. (Had I given them a false voter's registration card or attempted to vote in more than one location I would be committing an actionable crime, a felony.) I'm handed an official ballot approved by the State of Florida, cast my vote in private, and submit it to the ballot reader to be counted.

In other words, I legally voted for the candidate of my choice.

That being said, for the next several months, I was told by others--including many on this board--that contrary to my own understanding, I did somehow not legally vote and that my vote should have zero effect at the DNC Convention, all because of some stupid little spat between state and national DNC figures, a spat that I had absolutely zero say or control in. It was not until before the convention itself that the party realized that in effect disenfranchising 2 plus million Democrats may not exactly be the right thing to do and reversed its horrid original action.

Yes, disenfranchising. I, an eligible voter, cast a legally viable vote for the candidate of my choice, and for a good several months I was told that my vote would not be given its proper effect. I think you would agree that constitutes disenfranchisement, wouldn't you?

The sad thing is, some people who claim to espouse the most liberal of virtues were okay with these inexcusable actions and steadfastly defended these actions, all because their political idol was at the helm during this entire debacle, and admitting that what the DNC did was wrong would be in a sense admitting that their political idol was wrong. And they just couldn't fathom that.

As an aside, I have no idea what you are talking about as to "not voting for your chosen candidate." I really don't know where you got that from.

Stay cresent fresh!

EOM

For the uninitiated, here is all you need to know about everyone's favorite crappy bald, mayonnaise loving Canadian rapper, Chuggo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPeHk4WMWpY

A Chuggo Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuggo

And the lyrics to Chuggo's masterpiece, "Ahh! C'mon Fuckin' Guy!":

http://www.actionext.com/names_i/immortal_...

Note: The lyrics will help one better appreciate the novella.

The schedule is as follows:

Monday, April 5th: Prologue/Chapter One
Tuesday, April 6th: Chapter Two
Wednesday, April 7th: Chapter Three
Thursday, April 8th: Chapter Four
Friday, April 9th: Chapter Five/Epilogue

The following is a work of fiction. No bald Canadian rappers were injured in the writing of this novella.

So without further adieu....

This topic has been moved by the moderator of this forum.
It can be found at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

....I wasn't listening.

...unsolicited as it might be:

Abortion rights proponents believe the issue to be 100% about the woman carrying the fetus. Abortion opponents believe the issue to be 100% about the fetus/unborn child. And each side will independently frame the issue as such, and as such there is almost a natural fundamental disconnect between the two sides where there doesn't need to be, at least to the extent of wanting to have an actual conversation and not just a screaming match. (And I think for some, they don't want an actual conversation and I honestly find that sad.)

The fact is that the abortion is neither 100% about the woman nor 100% about the fetus. The pregnancy process is an entirely unique one, unparalleled from that of any other medical process faced by living organisms. On one hand you have a woman who is required to endure significant biological changes throughout the process. On the other hand, you are dealing with a seperate biological entity with a seperate DNA, and oh yeah--one that is evolving on a daily basis into all the familar system that encompass a human being. So there really is a balance between the two interests. (And I'm not saying it is a 50/50 balance or a 70/30 balance or a 99/1 balance in either direction. But when it comes to taking an honest look at the abortion issue, one must admit that after peeling aside all the heated rhetoric there are two legitimate interests to be considered.)

I'm not really of the mindset that your "parasitic growth" analogy is all that apt--to me, that logic is too similar to the flawed "guns vs. cars" talking points espoused by NRA members (i.e. the argument that car accidents kill more people annually than guns do). There is no sympathy for a true parasite, such as a tapeworm. In all circumstances, it is viewed as an unwelcome intruder, and the uncontroverted medical course of action is always to remove it, and to remove it as quickly as possible. However, there is no black-white reaction like that during the pregnancy process. At least in circumstances where the pregnancy is viewed as a welcome thing, people will celebrate the embryo/fetus, even from the earliest stages. They will frame ultrasound pictures, they will talk to it and play music to it, they will press their hand up to the stomach of the mother to feel it kick. That is hardly how one reacts to a tapeworm.

But that's somewhat beside the point. I think the bottom line when it comes to the abortion debate is that each side is always shocked--shocked!--when they talk to someone of the opposing mindset and not only is there disagreement, but a total and undeniable disconnect. And that's because in the rush to frame the issue as friendly to what they think are the general public's values as possible, they've lost sight of what they are debating about. In doing so, they are denying thesmelves of the reality that there maybe some value to the opposing sides points, even if there is a general overall disagreement. In the meantime, abortion rights proponents will talk until they are blue in the face about personal soverignity and "keeping your laws off my body", and abortion opponents will talk about God and a "culture of life", and all of it--all of it--is a bunch of hot air which doesn't serve to honestly convince a single person of the opposing view point. It's all incredibly self-serving and truly a waste of words.

I think any talk of "end games" in the abortion debate is a difficult one. If each side is to be truly honest to both themselves and to the other side, then I don't see how wanting a situation where a)abortion is considered an unbreachable and unfettered right and considered to be the same as any other medical procedure or--alternately--b)abortion is to be prohibited in all circumstances no matter how prejudicial the situation may be to the woman. Now, to what extent should any restrictions go as opposed to the permissible right of action? That's the million dollar question and I wish I had an answer to it, but I don't. But that's why we need a real and honest debate on the subject taking into account all the interests at hand and why each side believes why they do, and not just a screaming match to see who can make their opponent look the worst.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGlONkndc-w

I'm bookmarking this for circumstances involving Godwin's law.

From the Americares website:

http://www.americares.org

After a rough week at home, and a truly hellish week in Haiti, it's always nice to have something that you can smile at. Here, it's the sight of a seven year old child being pulled from the rubble after being buried for a week, apparently uninjured, with a great big smile on his face, reaching up to embrace the world again.

CNN had a story on the rescue:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/201...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Drawing the line at 95% party vote:

Baca 99.2%
Bishop 96.9%
Cardoza 96.9%
Costa 95.6%
Costllo 96.2%
Cuellar 95.9%
Doyle 98.7%
Driehaus 95.2%
Etheridge 97.7%
Gordon 96.2%
Holder 96.1%
Kanjarowski 97.1%
Kaptur 96.5%
Kildee 98.9%
Langevin 99.3%
Lipinski 97.2%
Lynch 98.3%
Michaud 95.0%
Mollohan 98.0%
Murtha 98.9%
Neal 98.9%
Oberstar 97.5%
Obey 98.5%
Ortiz 98.7%
Pomeroy 97.7%
Rahall 96.9%
Reyes 99.2%
Rodriguez 98.2%
Ryan 98.7%
Salazar 97.5%
Skelton 95.8%
Snyder 96.8%
Spratt 98.0%
Stupak 96.1%
Wilson 97.8%

So you can take your own little Madfloridian Hall of Shame list and shove it, well, you know the rest. And frankly, I don't envy the list.

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)

Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)