Mosque-querade

Note: I wrote this about a month ago, but just never got around to posting it until now.

Yeah, so this whole “Ground Zero Mosque” thing has gotten out of hand, as so much seems to do these days.

Spurred on by xenophobic knuckleheads (as documented in this Salon story), Fox News and the general stupidity that's blanketed our nation since our exposure to teabaggers, what would normally be nothing more than a snooze of a construction project has suddenly become the latest shiny thing flashing insignificantly in the corner of the national eye.

First, a few facts:

• There is no “mosque.” What you have here is Park 51, a community center. It’s a Muslim version of a YMCA, only without a song they sing at wedding receptions. In this community center are classrooms, basketball courts, a pool, and, oh yeah, a prayer room. As author Charlie Pierce noted on The Stephanie Miller Show, having a prayer room no more makes this community center a mosque than having a chapel makes Boston’s Logan Airport a cathedral.
• Ground Zero, where the twin towers of the World Trade Center once stood, is not “sacred ground.” If it was, then a mall would be the last thing you would build there. You do not locate a Gap, Victoria’s Secret, Hot Topix or Sbarro on sacred ground, which, in what should be our eternal embarrassment, is exactly what is being built at the WTC site.
• The community center is not located at Ground Zero. It is located two blocks away, which in lower Manhattan means that no one at Park 51 can see Ground Zero, and no one at Ground Zero can see Park 51. The community center is also surrounded by sacred enterprises such as bars, fast food joints, off-track betting parlors, two strip clubs — the New York Dolls Gentleman’s Club and the Pussycat Lounge, just in case you're in the neighborhood — and Thunder Lingerie and More, a sex shop with a peep show.

Yes, indeed. Nothing says sacred like a peep show.

But the most important fact being forgotten here is this: the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not come with conditions. When it says that we are free to practice our religion without interference from the government, it means all religions. The visceral anti-Islamic behavior we’re witnessing is more than misplaced. It was not Islam that slammed two planes into the World Trade Center. It was two nuts cases and some of their nut case friends. These men no more represented Islam than Timothy McVeigh represented Christianity.

But let’s face it, those protesting Park 51 have already succeed in one very significant way. By willfully abdicating the rights granted to all of us by the U.S. Constitution, they have handed Osama Bin Laden and his followers a bigger victory than even they had hoped for on Sept. 11, 2001.

You can read some other interesting facts about all this here and here.

Arizona: a portrait in cowardice

A friend of mine likes to say, “When the pie gets smaller, the first thing to leave are the table manners.”

Enter Arizona’s SB 1070.

To no one’s great surprise, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton essentially gutted  SB1070 by declaring the most radical parts of the Arizona law as unconstitutional. Bolton had plenty of good reason to knock down the law, specifically the fourth, 10th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Not that the constitution ever mattered to those who support SB1070. This has never been about the law, or immigration for that matter. This has always been about elections — specifically the race for Arizona governor and what party will control the legislature (and for those who like to point out that a majority of people here and nation-wide support the bill, I say this: a majority of Germans thought Hitler was a great guy, too).

I few weeks back the Arizona Capitol Times ran an article outlining how SB1070 finally passed. Yes, finally passed. As the Capitol Times article noted, this same law was introduced three time prior to 2010, and in each of its previous incantations the bill never made it to a committee vote in the Arizona legislature. The Capitol Times article documents the politics that lead to SB1070 not only getting out of committee, but actually passing. Lobbyists for groups that had vehemently oppose it in the past — including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Professional Police Officers Association and many more — stepped out of the way this time under threat from Russell Pierce, the state senator who introduced the divisive bill. Pierce threatened to accuse them of pandering to undocumented immigrants . . . and, well, they just couldn’t have that, could they?

It was, to put it mildly, a statewide capitulation to cowardice.

An article in Geopolitical Weekly did a decent job of showing why, in the end, the bill will reach well beyond the Arizona-Mexico border, now matter how courts rule in the end. It’s a very well done piece.  Key passages come under the title “A Temporary Resolution,” in which the author explains the historical relationship between Arizona and Mexico. It boils down to this: Arizona seeks cheap labor, and Mexico provides it. It was supposed to be a short-term solution to some of the animus that arose following the Mexican-American war. Unfortunately the resolution stopped being temporary long ago. That Mexico provides Arizona with cheap labor is as true today as is was when this area was first settled as part of the United States. The irony in all of this is that the very people who wrote and passed SB 1070 were the same group of people who less than a decade ago asked the Border Patrol to ease up on enforcement so that their friends in the business community could have access to cheap labor. Cheap labor, more than anything else, is why our current border conditions exist as they do.

While the author is right about some people — mainly conservatives — being concerned about a cultural shift, those people are late to the party. Mexican culture plays a huge role in Southwest culture, from Texas to California. Like every other culture that’s moved here, it has been Americanized.  But the reason people immigrate from Mexico is no different from the reason our relatives did: for a shot at a better life, not to recreate the turmoil and economic depravation from which they came.

One of the key issues not addressed in the article, and rarely addressed at anytime, is that the Mexican economy is wholly controlled by a literal handful of very wealthy families, and they aren’t letting go. In order to maintain control of the country — not to mention the better part of its wealth — they have sold out the rest of their fellow Mexicans, and have prevented innumerable policies and programs from becoming law in Mexico (including important public education, health and environmental initiatives). These laws would have strengthened Mexico's economy, provided literally thousands of jobs and kept people from immigrating to the U.S. Unfortunately, those in control of the Mexican economy are not so much worried about the health of Mexico as they are the health of their bank accounts.

Let there be no doubt that there is an immigration problem, and that it is an international problem that will require the work of both nations to solve. But before that can happen, major changes have to take place on both sides of the border. In Mexico, the government must begin to answer to its people instead of a handful of families, and on our side the issue must be wrestled away from the xenophobes who would rather scare people so that they can get elected than come up with actual solutions.

One more side note — the irony not lost on many of us is that the republicans have picked up this issue and are running with it for a third consecutive election cycle. In Arizona the issue comes up every couple of years. Here it is a smokescreen to distract attention from the disastrous republican policies that have ruined Arizona’s economy and social institutions, from health care for indigent children to education. Nationally, republicans controlled congress for a decade, and the legislative and executive branches for six years and did nothing about immigration. Every time my republican friends complain about this issue (or choice issues with women) I remind them that when republicans had the chance to do something, they passed.

And they passed because they are craven.

Watch out — you might be next

I originally posted what's below in April and needed to repost after some editing issues.

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

— Pastor Martin Niemöller

On Saturday I attended the Bar Mitzvah of a friend’s son. Sitting in the Temple with my friend’s family and members of the congregation observing the Shabbat, I couldn’t help but wonder how they felt about the passage of the misnamed immigration-enforcement bill by our Arizona legislature. I wondered if they had made any connection between the actions of our misguided, and gallactically stupid, lawmakers and the  group of brown shirts that passed similar laws in Germany as part of the Nazi take over. As it turned out, it didn’t take long for the rabbi to make the connection at all. Although his remarks on the subject were succinct, they were nevertheless powerful, as he reminded everyone in attendance that there was not a very big leap between legislation passed under the guise of providing protection for citizens and the murder of more than six million Jews.

The law does not target Jews. Instead, it targets Hispanics. That the law is racist in its roots is not even in dispute. If he though he could have gotten away with it the law’s author — Russell Pierce (R-Nazi) — would have immigrants sew a bright M (for Mexican!) on their clothes to more easily identify them. Do you doubt that? Well, does anyone seriously believe that any of the millions of Canadians who visit and stay in Arizona every winter will be pulled over, questioned and have a police officer demand their papers? Or how about the millions of white Europeans who visit (or, at least who used to) the Grand Canyon? Didn’t think so.

It is not an overreaction or hyperbole to suggest that Arizona’s immigration-enforcement law is Nazi-like. The law allows any law enforcement officer to demand citizenship papers from anyone they suspect is an immigrant, at any time. There is zero requirement for reasonable suspicion or probable cause — fundamental rights guaranteed to everyone, including visitors to our country, in the Fourth Amendment. The language of the Fourth Amendment cannot be clearer: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law knowing that every provision of it stood in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and that it did little to protect Arizonans or alleviate any of the concerns in Arizona caused by Central American drug cartels (cartels, by the way, that do most their work south of the border, and use U.S. citizens to deliver and sell their product north of the border). Of course Brewer — who, like the majority of Arizona’s cowardly legislature, is badly in need of a spine — was never looking to protect Arizonans in the first place. What she, and the republican majority wanted to protect was themselves. More specifically, their re-election chances in November. It just might work. Unfortunately their re-election is likely to come at great expense to the state and citizens they’re supposed to serve.

What Brewer and company lack in fortitude they make up for in ignorance. Among the many damages caused by Arizona’s term limits law is the lack of institutional knowledge in the halls of the legislature. No one in Arizona’s legislature . . . check that.  No one in Arizona’s republican majority at the legislature seems to remember what happened to our state the last time it went the way of the racists. That was back in the late 1980s when then-Gov. Evan Mecham (R-Ku Klux Klan) rescinded a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. As a result, Arizona lost billions  because of canceled events (including a Super Bowl), a drop in tourism and billions more because, generally, for the most part, people don’t want to do business with people who appear to be racists, or who take racially motivated political acts. Turns out racism isn’t just bad for business, it just plain bad business.

In Arizona, we’re about to find out — again — just how bad it can get.

I might be a Catholic, but I’m no sucker

My brother and I like to tell a joke about our very Catholic grandmother. It goes like this: You know how on the back of medals it always says, “I’m a Catholic. If something should happen call a priest?” Well, our grandmother is so Catholic that on her medal it says, “I’m an extraordinary Catholic, call me a Cardinal.”

Well, we think it’s funny.

What isn’t funny is the current crisis in faith I’m battling with. Over the last few years, and in particularly over the last six months, as more and more news arises about the atrocities committed by priests, and the subsequent cover-up by the church, my faith in my faith has been rocked. To make matters worse the current pope, Benedict XVI, is found to have covered up the pedophile predilections of a Wisconsin priest who preyed on hundreds of deaf children, not to mention his active participation in cover-ups for  prey-seeking priests in Germany.

The church’s reaction to this has been to play victim, to blame the media for anti-Catholic bias, and to protect, at all costs, the Pope. A Pope, it should be pointed out, who loses more credibility every day as more and more revelations come forward of his complicity in allowing these priests continued access to children.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd  — a fellow traveler in faith — has been among the most vocal critics of the church. Normally overly snarky, Dowd has been spot on in a recent series of columns on this issue. A column published during holy week (in which she pointed out that “the church has given up credibility for lent”), and another on April 11 were particularly poignant (and you can find other columns she's written on the subject here, here and here).

The church has a credibility problem that has reached the tipping point, and it seems to either not know it, or not care. I suspect I’m not the only Catholic who manages to find reasons not attend mass on Sunday (last week’s reason: the Flyers – Rangers game was on).  When I did attend mass on Easter, my mind continually wandered during the homily to thoughts of how such a large group of well intentioned people could sit there and not feel outraged by what their church, and its leader, were doing.

I struggle with parts of my faith every day. I am a pro-choice Catholic, believe people have a right to practice birth control, and that gay and lesbian members of the church have as much right to marry as the rest of us. I do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope because the Pope is simply a man. I believe the patriarchal chain of authority in the church prevents it from fulfilling the mission Christ chose for it, and that treating women as second class participants has robbed us all of wisdom, not to mention compassion. I believe the church squanders its wealth and good will by not helping the poor enough. And I think the church and its bishops play Russian roulette when they engage in civil politics instead of heeding the words of Jesus to “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (that’s Matthew 22:21 . . . you can look it up).

Through it all I have clung to a belief that I could do some good for my community through the church, and that through communion with my fellow parishioners I could seek and find the peace that only comes from God. But as we find out about more atrocities, I struggle not with my faith in a just God, but with a church that will muster all of its resources and power to remain in control rather than to do what’s right.

On the off chance you’re interested, the Coyotes – Red Wings game will be on TV this Sunday.

Ignore the moon bats: it's time to move, quickly, into the post Reagan era

There was an interesting piece by David Leohardt in the March 23 New York Times in which he outlines how the passage of the healthcare bill has allowed President Obama to begin to attack the wealth inequity of our nation that was begun under Ronald Reagan.

It’s about time.

The economic policies that began under Reagan led to the collapse of our economy just two years ago. His policies, and all republican policies since, have been monumental failures because they were built on a false premise. "Trickle down" economics does not exist, and it never did. It is simply the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. David Stockman, Reagan's budget manager, admitted it was not just a flawed theory, but a fraudulent one, designed to line the pockets of Reagan's rich friends . . . and Reagan and everyone else knew it. They wrapped it in a pretty package, and despite seeing their own incomes and benefits devastated as a result, many people continued (and continue today) to vote against their economic self interests, and the economic self interests of our nation.

Reagan is equally responsible for laying every problem our nation faces at the feet of our government. In his first address to Congress, he famously declared that “government is the problem.” He attacked government, as comedian Lewis Black put it, as though it were a gigantic building walking around destroying the country side.

Here’s the predicament: in the United States, the citizens are the government. Effectively, Reagan was claiming that we, the people, are the problem. That’s a hell of a thing for a president to say, and it was also completely wrong. For years U.S. citizens were encouraged to serve their communities and countries as public servants. The idea was for our best and brightest to dedicate some time to the public good before going out and finding their fortune in the private sector. The men and women who answered this call took us to the moon; planned some of the world’s greatest cities; saved us from an extended time in the Pacific during World War II that likely would have cost millions of lives; designed and constructed our interstate transportation system; established and built the information super highway; were the teachers who inspired millions of us to be more than we ever thought we could be; and so much more.

It’s time to end the myth that our government is the problem. When funded and managed properly, our government provides great service to its citizens, and it makes our communities and our nation stronger. Strong government programs do not take away from the free market, but enhances it by assuring there is a level playing field for all participants. A strong government comes to the aid of its citizens, as it did in 1992 following Hurricane Andrew (as opposed to what happened in 2005 under a weak and incompetent government with Hurricane Katrina).

The legacy of Ronald Reagan — less government and tax cuts for the rich — is 30 years of punishment for the great American middle class, 30 years of the rich getting richer, 30 years of severely weakening our national economy (and thus our security) and 30 years of across the board failure in every respect. There is not a single example that policies hatched during the Reagan administration have ever worked, or ever could.

It is long past time for our conservative friends to man up, admit the great damage they have done to our nation and own their collective failure.

Duke ruins the NCAA tournament . . . again

So, how bad are your brackets after the first weekend of this year’s NCAA basketball tournament? It certainly has been interesting — unless you’re, you know, a Kansas fan.

I, for one, would have been really thrilled with Cornell’s first victory in the Big Dance in 50 years provided, of course, it hadn’t come at the hands of my beloved Temple Owls. The fact that the Big Red went on to beat that other Big Red, Wisconsin, sort of made it better, but not by much.

The Temple-Cornell matchup, as pointed out by ESPN’s Chris Low, was the result of poor seeding by the selection committee, and he’s right. The Owls, who spent much of this season in the top 15, were a fifth seed. Based on their record, RPI and all the other stuff the NCAA committee considers, Temple should have been no worse than a four seed, and in many pre-tournament brackets were a three seed. While you can certainly make a case for three seeds Pitt and Baylor, it’s harder to make the case for offering a three seed to Georgetown or New Mexico. Harder still is making a case for either Maryland or Vanderbilt as four seeds. While both teams had nice seasons, neither spent much time in the top 20, let alone the top 15. In a stretch you might argue that Vandy got there based on the strength of conference. You can’t say the same of Maryland, who didn’t even make it to the finals of a weak ACC this year.

This, of course, brings us to Duke. The Blue Devils started the season on the lower end of the top 25, and steadily made their way up the rankings ladder to number five . . . which means for the better part of the season there were at least four teams better than Duke. So, why, then, do the Blue Devils not only get such a cushy seeding, but, arguably, top seeding in the weakest bracket (seriously, Villanova a number two seed?)? That spot is usually reserved for the overall number one seed, in this case Kansas, who has actually played their way into it. If I lived in Lawrence, Kan., I would be planning now for an all-out assault on the NCAA offices, not to mention Raleigh-Durham.

There are theories on why this happened, and count me among the conspirators who have come to firmly believe that CBS, ESPN and the national college basketball media have simply become Duke’s volunteer assistant coach in charge of recruiting, with Dick Vitale leading the pack.

No need to take my word for it, of course.  Here’s a great column from Jason Whitlock of the Sacramento Bee that pretty much sums up the whole sleazy plot.

Thank you Mr. Lincoln

First a quick note: if you feel the need for a dose of patriotism, Washington, D.C. is a great place to be. If we do nothing else as a country, we do monuments really well. There is nothing as inspiring as a visit to the Jefferson or FDR memorials along the Tidal Basin, or hitting the war memorials along the National Mall. But there may be no more awe-inspiring place in all of Washington than the Lincoln Memorial.

Which leads me to wonder: what would Lincoln make of his republican party today?

Here's a guess: he wouldn't recognize it. What made Lincoln one of our greatest presidents was his willingness to do things that were best for our nation, but not necessarily for him. Case in point: the Civil War.

Lincoln had hoped to avoid civil war, but, because of circumstances not of his making, and the political rancor they inspired, it was practically a faint accompli by the time he was sworn in. He also knew there was no other way to save the Union but to go war. It's easy to forget that the Civil War was opposed by most Americans above the Mason Dixon line. Lincoln was treated particularly harshly by the media of his time, and found as much opposition from the members of his own party as he did from the Democrats. Fortunately for us, his calls for common sense, and the Union, prevailed. Lincoln paid the ultimate price for those decisions. Based on what we know of him, chances are pretty good that, even if he knew of his fate, Lincoln would have made the same decisions anyway. Why? Because he always put his country before himself and his party.

You'll find no republican willing to do that today. From health care to tax policy, from education to the social safety net, modern republicans have simply abandoned their countrymen. Party is first, individuals are second and country runs a distant third.

And none of that is patriotic.