A Modest Accomplishment (Mark Schmitt & Rich Lowry)

[Bloggingheads]

The victims argument is so crap. Like every single victim is against the building of the Cordoba center. Therefore, inter-culturally, I throw my shoe at Rich Lowry. Bad argument Rich, bad.

There is really no good argument against building the Cordoba Center and opening it. Lots of reasons to criticize them and point fingers perhaps, but let them do their thing. Apparently they're the truly moderate, United Methodist kind of Muslims... let us see it.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Agreed. Lowry's argument was pretty unimpressive. He suggests that 10 blocks away would be more appropriate, but this to me is just trying to avoid being called on what is obviously religious intolerance. So move ten blocks away and there will undoubtedly be alot of Americans who still think it's inappropriate. 10 miles. 100 miles. Etc. At what point is it okay and how do you determine the correct distance? When we finally get to a safe distance but some people still are screaming about it, how would Lowry respond to those people? And how would his response be any different than the one being made by those who are making the same argument at the current location?

I view these things like free speech. The American tradition is to protect the freedom of even the most offensive speech. And even the most offensive religious displays. It is in these circumstances where our principles are most strenuously tested. And it is at these times that our fortitude is most crucial.

I also have no doubt that if this situation involved a Christian church, Lowry would be going to great lengths to explain that this congregation A shouldn't be punished for the sins of a small splinter group B that only happens to share a broad religious overview with many peaceful Christian believers, and highlighting the fact that unlimited freedom of religious practice was the principle concern of the Founding Fathers...and America...and apple pie...etc.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Agreed. Lowry's argument was pretty unimpressive. He suggests that 10 blocks away would be more appropriate, but this to me is just trying to avoid being called on what is obviously religious intolerance. So move ten blocks away and there will undoubtedly be alot of Americans who still think it's inappropriate. 10 miles. 100 miles. Etc. At what point is it okay and how do you determine the correct distance? When we finally get to a safe distance but some people still are screaming about it, how would Lowry respond to those people? And how would his response be any different than those who are making the same argument at the current location?

I view these things like free speech. The American tradition is to protect the freedom of even the most offensive speech. And even the most offensive religious displays. It is in these circumstances where our principles are most strenuously tested.

I also have no doubt that if this situation involved a Christian church, Lowry would be going to great lengths to explain that this congregation A shouldn't be punished for the sins of a small splinter group that only happens to share a broad religious overview with many peaceful Christian believers, and highlighting the fact that unlimited freedom of religious practice was the principle concern of the Founding Fathers...and America...and apple pie...etc.

I don't believe that even Rich believes his argument.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I don't believe that even Rich believes his argument.

Yeah, unfortunately I agree. I think that's why I enjoy Pinkerton more as a diavlogger, even if what he says tends to seem goofier or farther from my own values than what Lowry says. Pinkerton seems sincere, whereas Lowry seems to be saying whatever works to push his political aim (which is about elections more than anything else). I'm really, really bored with the whole D vs. R nature of these discussions, as if every issue had to be slotted into that format and then people fall in line based on what side they are on.

The Clinton vs. Obama aspect of this discussion was especially bizarre in that regard. Clinton only raised taxes slightly, so is good, even though the idea of going back to the Clinton levels is greeted with horror and cries of socialism. Plus, of course, I remember the Clinton administration, and don't recall the right conceding that he was a centrist and just wanted a small and reasonable increase in taxes, etc.

I do wonder what the anti-free-trade Republicans (who often seem to line up with the most anti-immigration types) think of the criticism of Obama for not being sufficiently pro free trade, but I suppose anti free trade Republicans have fundamental problems with a bit of the party's ideology, even if the Republicans seem to be able to mostly keep these things damped down.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by stephanie

I'm really, really bored with the whole D vs. R nature of these discussions, as if every issue had to be slotted into that format and then people fall in line based on what side they are on.

Then you should have enjoyed this and the outcome which occurred yesterday

The Clinton vs. Obama aspect of this discussion was especially bizarre in that regard. Clinton only raised taxes slightly, so is good, even though the idea of going back to the Clinton levels is greeted with horror and cries of socialism. Plus, of course, I remember the Clinton administration, and don't recall the right conceding that he was a centrist and just wanted a small and reasonable increase in taxes, etc.

I agree. The republicans don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to spending and big government.

I do wonder what the anti-free-trade Republicans (who often seem to line up with the most anti-immigration types) think of the criticism of Obama for not being sufficiently pro free trade, but I suppose anti free trade Republicans have fundamental problems with a bit of the party's ideology, even if the Republicans seem to be able to mostly keep these things damped down.

Lou Dobbs comes to mind when you talk about anti free trade. BTW, what do you mean by anti immigration types? ...anti illegal immigration types? There is a difference.

[stephanie]

Lou Dobbs comes to mind when you talk about anti free trade. BTW, what do you mean by anti immigration types? ...anti illegal immigration types? There is a difference.

I mean to include both people who are really fixated on illegal immigration and people who are generally against immigration in the numbers we have now whatever kind it is. However, I agree with you that there are differences.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

I view these things like free speech. The American tradition is to protect the freedom of even the most offensive speech. And even the most offensive religious displays. It is in these circumstances where our principles are most strenuously tested. And it is at these times that our fortitude is most crucial.

Clenched fist salute, my brother.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Clenched fist salute, my brother.

And another one to Mike Bloomberg. This is how a real America's Mayor acts.

And don't miss the links at the bottom -- good stuff.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

And another one to Mike Bloomberg. This is how a real America's Mayor acts.

And don't miss the links at the bottom -- good stuff.

Is this the same Mike Bloomberg who blamed everyone but the Knights of Columbus and Islamic Terrorists for the Time Square Bombing?

Oh...and I had actually forgotten that Bloombergs original "bet" on who the person behind the Time Square bomb was somebody who did not like Obamacare. Yep, this is the guy you want to get behind. Too funny.

I agree, his speech about the Mosque doesn't make up for his "it was probably someone against the health care bill" remarks.

Both speeches must forever accompany one another... and thankfully, because of the internet, they likely forever will.

Some rich non-believer should buy space next door or across the street from the Center, and build a "I don't believe" center where cartoons of Muhammad are displayed.

Originally Posted by Lyle

I agree, his speech about the Mosque doesn't make up for his "it was probably someone against the health care bill" remarks.

Both speeches must forever accompany one another... and thankfully, because of the internet, they likely forever will.

Some rich non-believer should buy space next door or across the street from the Center, and build a "I don't believe" center where cartoons of Muhammad are displayed.

Ha! Yeah...maybe a big statue out front of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wearing a turban with a bomb implanted in it.

Honesty.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

Honesty.

Yes. "Addicted to Hate."

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

And another one to Mike Bloomberg. This is how a real America's Mayor acts.

And don't miss the links at the bottom -- good stuff.

From Jim Newell:

Let's Give Michael Bloomberg a Hand

[uncle ebeneezer]

I think I mentioned this before, but when I was in college the Klan came and marched at my school (Delaware) and alot of us went to check it out, out of mornid curiosity. It was ugly. The marchers, the protesters. The whole affair was just dripping with anger and hate. But it was one of those only-in-America moments that to me highlighted one of the greatest virtues of our democracy. Warts and all, as they say.

[opposable_crumbs]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

I think I mentioned this before, but when I was in college the Klan came and marched at my school (Delaware) and alot of us went to check it out, out of mornid curiosity. It was ugly. The marchers, the protesters. The whole affair was just dripping with anger and hate. But it was one of those only-in-America moments that to me highlighted one of the greatest virtues of our democracy. Warts and all, as they say.

Ugly indeed. I wonder if Lowry would support the victims of Klan terror, if they wanted to veto where crosses could be constructed, burning or otherwise.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs

Ugly indeed. I wonder if Lowry would support the victims of Klan terror, if they wanted to veto where crosses could be constructed, burning or otherwise.

This doesn't really make sense to me. I haven't actually been following your thread, but are you saying this?: Lowry doesn't support the people who are opposed to the mosque, so let's set up an analogy and ask if would he support victims of Klan crosses against the erection of Klan crosses.

I don't think this works. It has been shown that the Klan does have a right to march peacefully. Any crosses which are erected would have to be erected in a legal space which I think would preclude them from being burning crosses.
I think most people understand and would not be shocked that the first amendment covers Klan speech.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

I think I mentioned this before, but when I was in college the Klan came and marched at my school (Delaware) and alot of us went to check it out, out of mornid curiosity. It was ugly. The marchers, the protesters. The whole affair was just dripping with anger and hate. But it was one of those only-in-America moments that to me highlighted one of the greatest virtues of our democracy. Warts and all, as they say.

Yeah, but, I hate Illinois Nazis!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

I view these things like free speech. The American tradition is to protect the freedom of even the most offensive speech. And even the most offensive religious displays. It is in these circumstances where our principles are most strenuously tested. And it is at these times that our fortitude is most crucial.

The only caveat to this would be if taxpayer money were being used, which it isn't. The reason I bring this up is because of the dust up around the Piss Christ. In that case, because it was awarded a prize by the NEA, it would seem taxpayers should have some say. Or in the case of boy scouts restricting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters if the scouts use public spaces for meetings then they shouldn't be able to discriminate.

But if the funding is private and there are no zoning issues I say let the mosque be built whatever the motivation for doing so. That's the American way.

[Big_Time_Gumshoe]

There are Shinto Shrines and Japanese cultural centres very close to Pearl Harbor and on one's losing their mind over that.

What good does it do to allow the most extreme adherents define a faith? Bin Laden purports to speak for all Muslims, shouldn't we be pushing back against that narrative?

Notwithstanding the fact that Bloomberg supports the project and to outlaw it's construction would be quite likely impossible pursuant to the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act":

"No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution--
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

[chamblee54]

This must be a slow news week to be this worried about a *another* New York construction project.
chamblee54

[listener]

Heh. Well, you know, times are tough, even in NYC there isn't that much construction going on...

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by chamblee54

[...]

I like that piece of art, too.

[chamblee54]

Mr. Lowry discusses paying for the Bush tax cuts by cutting spending. He talks about "Obamacare" and does not say a word about the wars in Babylon and Stan land.
Much of the current deficit problems had their start when congress cut taxes, knowing that an invasion of Babylon was iminent. The idea of cutting taxes on the eve of a war is madness.
Was it by design to have Mr. Schmitt on the left, and Mr. Lowry on the right? Just for kicks, why not put Bill Scher on the right this weekend?
chamblee54

[BornAgainDemocrat]

If like other countries we had a biometric national I.D and stiff sanctions on employers, deportations would not be necessary. Illegals would go home voluntarily if they couldn't find work.

Just about everyone who has seriously looked at the issue understands this, including Sen. Schumer of NY. Let's see how serious the Obama administration really is on the question of enforcement. .

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

With a biometric national I.D and stiff sanctions on employers, deportations would not be necessary. Illegals would go home if they couldn't find work.

Just about everyone who has seriously looked at the issue knows this, including Sen. Schumer of NY.

Show me your papers! Why is everyone in such a hurry to live in a police state?

[BornAgainDemocrat]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Show me your papers! Why is everyone in such a hurry to live in a police state?

Because we need the police? As in a "policed state," not a "police state."

Perhaps AemJeff would prefer to live in an un-policed state?

[listener]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Because we need the police?

If I may, needing police and living in a police state are two quite different things. Ask just about any South American.

[BornAgainDemocrat]

Originally Posted by listener

If I may, needing police and living in a police state are two quite different things. Ask just about any South American.

Yes, I was trying to say that. A policed state, not a police state.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Because we need the police? As in a "policed state," not a "police state."

Perhaps AemJeff would prefer to live in an un-policed state?

You present a false dichotomy. Which you acknowledged in your response to listener, below.

[listener]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Because we need the police?

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

Because we need the police? As in a "policed state," not a "police state."

Perhaps AemJeff would prefer to live in an un-policed state?

Hey, we all speak rashly sometimes and say things we'd rather not have said -- myself included. But I think it speaks better of us to admit to it when it happens rather than to try to cover our tracks.

[listener]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Show me your papers! Why is everyone in such a hurry to live in a police state?

Not to mention the appearance of the "everyone knows" fallacy once again...

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by listener

Not to mention the appearance of the "everyone knows" fallacy once again...

As fond as I am of the Latin, on occasions such as this in this house, we just call LAMBCHOP.

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

As fond as I am of the Latin, on occasions such as this in this house, we just call LAMBCHOP.

Well, to, like, totally, split hairs here, to my understanding, "everybody knows" falls under the Latin rule, while Lambchop's Rule is reserved for statements that begin with "The American People Want (or Think)," or similar substitutions of "what the A.P. want" for "what I want."

However, I am totally in favor of More Lambchop, NMWTC,* and will take any opportunity, no matter how far-fetched, to spread the Gospel of Shari.

*No Matter What the Context

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by listener

Well, to, like, totally, split hairs here, to my understanding, "everybody knows" falls under the Latin rule, while Lambchop's Rule is reserved for statements that begin with "The American People Want (or Think)," or similar substitutions of the A.P. for "what I want (or think)."

A stickler, 'ey? Okay, fine. I'll not go to the mat on this one.

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

A stickler, 'ey? Okay, fine. I'll not go to the mat on this one.

And not even an acknowledgment of my record-breaking use of commas?

I'm crushed.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by listener

And not even an acknowledgment of my record-breaking use of commas?

I'm crushed.

Sorry. It's kind of hard for me to think to praise something I view as one of my afflictions.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

If like other countries we had a biometric national I.D and stiff sanctions on employers, deportations would not be necessary. Illegals would go home voluntarily if they couldn't find work.

Just about everyone who has seriously looked at the issue understands this, including Sen. Schumer of NY. Let's see how serious the Obama administration really is on the question of enforcement. .

I think there are a ton of people in this country (including me) who would be reflexively against a national ID or any suggestion that we ought to be prepared to show our papers to prove our right to be here, outside of the currently accepted situations (when starting a new job, coming into and out of the country, etc.). And, for what it's worth, there's no particular ideological divide that determines who is and who isn't against it -- seems to me there's lots of objection on both liberal and conservative sides.

However, that aside, I'm with you that if we want to really get serious about enforcement the easiest way to do that is to enforce it with the employers. That no one has really come forward with a plan like yours, which would be hard for anyone to object to without admitting that they like the situation that illegal immigration brings about (which I don't think people would be anxious to admit, though I think in reality a lot of people do and more people benefit from) simply hardens my belief that all this immigration argument as currently framed is about is playing politics.