Douchebag of the Day

Today the douche-o-meter goes bust on John Sununu.

Recently Mr. Sununu said:

I'm a giant weiner. Wah wah wah. The president's black and that makes me want to support Hitler. White Power. I John Sununu am definately saying this. Wah.

Sorry I was going to copy and paste the actual quote, but hey I'm drunk and pissed at his actual bullshit comments. It's funny how a communist born in the People's Republic of Cuba can lecture a red blooded American on what it means to be a "real" American. Fuck off! But seriously John Sununu was born in Havana, Cuba, I'm guessing only a crib away from Castro. Why does John Sununu hate America so much that he was born in the terrorist state of Cuba? Because he hates America.

But any way John Sununu definately knows how to be a real American. Listen to his sage like advice:

I'm a giant weiner. Wah wah wah. The president's black and that makes me want to support Hitler. White Power. I John Sununu am definately saying this.Wah.

 Shit. I'm sorry, I did it again. Ok Sununununu nunu nu said:

"I wish this president would learn how to be an American" 

Are you going to teach him how to be a real 'm'rican, eh comrade?

Anyone living in the United States is a real American. They cannot be taught how to be an American. A racist douchebag like John Sununu is just as American as is the president, as is the homelessman begging on the street, as is the banker, as are my grandparents who got off the boat from Latveria or anyone else living in the US. New York, Illinois, California, and Hawaii are just as much a part of America as is Wisconsin, Oklahoma, or Mississippi. So stop it with this shit. We have a vast range of ideas; many horrible, a few great, and we try to wrestle them out through debate and the political process. We get nowhere by trying to disqualify competing ideas by labeling them as anti-American.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Rachel Maddow

For months I have been following the Court Room Epic known as Dean v. Maddow  (Dean v. NBC Universal would be its hypothetical case name), where Axel Rose (not really) gains 50 pounds and goes on homophobic tirades and then sues Rachel Maddow for quoting him. I have read all the available documents from the original Complaint issued by Bradlee Dean, to the Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to DC Anti-SLAPP Act, and now the Certification for Recusal or Disqualification of Judge.

I read the other day that the Judge in the case had docketed a judgment in favor of NBC Universal, awarding them attorneys fees. Subsequently the Plaintiffs are now quixotically pursuing a recusal. So in their honor I have gone through the main documents in the case to explain and critic them.  Hopefully the case will make a little bit more sense now.


The Complaint:

Don't Put in a Dollar Amount.

In many jurisdiction putting in an actual dollar amount in a complaint is unprofessional. Secondly 50 Million Dollars is ridiculous and makes you seem without creditability. If you are suing for 50 Million dollars, that is saying, Maddow ruined your reputation to the point where you expected to earn 1 Million dollars per year for the next 50 years. Dean is not Axel Rose so... yeah...

Side Bar Time

If you are suing someone for defamation, you should be mindful of the elements of a Tort. DBCD.  If you are claiming damages to your reputation and business, then making headlines (especially if it's the La Crosse Tribune):

DUNKERTON, Iowa — Administrators, teachers and students did not get what they expected Thursday during an extended school program.

Everyone anticipated the message from Junkyard Prophet, a traveling band based in Minnesota, to be about bullying and making good choices. Instead, junior and senior high students at Dunkerton High School and faculty members said they were assaulted by the group's extreme opinions on homosexuality and images of aborted fetuses.

"They told my daughter, the girls, that they were going to have mud on their wedding dresses if they weren't virgins," said Jennifer Littlefield, a parent upset with the band's performance..

... Littlefield also did not appreciate what she described as gay bashing.

"They told these kids that anyone who was gay was going to die at the age of 42," she said. "It just blows me away that no one stopped this."

Don't be in the news showing that the Maddow segment didn't affect your career. If you are still getting hired to preform at high schools, it is counter to your argument that you're damaged goods. Worse, if you are the one destroying your own reputation that undercuts the claim that Maddow is the causation. Worst, by saying sufficiently similar things to the alleged defamation, it shows the defamatory statements to be true, which is a defense against defamation.

Reduce the Pages

There are approximately 6 unnecessary pages out of 10. This is a court proceeding not the Newsroom at Fox. Slamming Maddow for being a gay leftist secular atheist will only anger the court because it has nothing to do with the case or the law.

State a Claim

Really why are you suing. If you can't state it in clear, concise words, then perhaps you shouldn't be suing.  Not everything requires a lawsuit.

Proof Read

Yes, hire a high school student if you need to. I'm dyslexic, and I would never, never submit anything without having 2 to 3 pair of eyes reading it, well except this blog because I'm lazy and cheap. Sentences like this should be edited "He is on information and belief a gay activist."  Once again I write a blog, I submit articles that I have proofread. They have spelling errors. If I were before a court I would pay someone to read it over. And get a style guide to learn how to comma properly. I suggest Eats, Shoots & Leaves.


The Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to DC Anti-SLAPP Act:

 Like her or hate her, Maddow has great lawyers. Really this motion is pure poetry. Well articulated, coherent and well reasoned. It is never abusive, but release on the law to make legal arguments.It is 51 pages, but if you ever get a chance to read the ant-slapp do it.  This is how a legal document should read.


The Recusal:


Good Faith vs. Bad Faith.

Because you are a Christian does not mean that you always have good faith. For example, if you move to dismiss your own action to bring the case to Federal Court to avoid Anti-SLAPP laws that is known as forum shopping. Forum Shopping is the antithesis of Good Faith. This motion clearly admits Forum Shopping, so it is doubly embarrassing.

While on the subject of good faith, NBC Universal could easily have filed a Motion for a change of venue. By getting a different venue Larry Klayman couldn't represent Dean, and let's face it DC is awkward in this case as Dean is primarily from Minnesota, Maddow Broadcasts from New York, and  NBC Universal is also out of New York.

It takes an Idiot...

When you are trying to get relief from judgment on the basis that the judge was prejudice it would behoove a litigant to do anything but call the judge a "woman scorned." It makes you seem like a jackass. Really why would you write that, all it can do is show that you were being unreasonable. Seriously, fuck, that's stupid.

!ekorts regna na dah tsuj I !ti nmaD

Ok. I'm better. When you are trying to claim prejudice, you yourself do not want to seem in the least bit prejudice. This is kindergarten shit.

It's a (Gay) Trap!

This is not Fox News. The Gay conspiracy doesn't exist. So stop it. It only hurts your argument as you seem unreasonable.


In the end it's real simple, the judge was in her right to order Attorneys' Fees. If you bring a suit forward only to drop it right before commencement you are wasting people's time and money.  What the Judge ordered was fair and reasonable. She could have gone a mile further and order deeper sanctions for wasting not only the defendants' money and time, but also the courts. She may also have been able to sanction Klayman (DC Bar Rule 3.2). This complaint is obviously frivolous because the plaintiff could barely state a claim. Dropping the case seconds before trial to pursue the same lousy case in a different court is a waste of time and money. Money the defendants should not pay.

All in all I am a little comfuzeded by this whole case.  I thought both Klayman and Dean were small government conservatives. So why do they need the Government to solve their problems? And why are they now seeking help from the largest, most gay loving intrusive level of government?

I think America's Scared to have a Man-Date

Holy shit. Lawrence O'Donnell was really right about something. Based on his background, it should come as no surprise that Lawrence does actually seem to be fairly competent with the USC. Perhaps I simply missed the conversation about what the individual mandate actually is, but when I finally looked it up to verify, I was shocked.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There is no such thing as the individual mandate. Wow. Lawrence is absolutely correct.

According to 26 USC § 5000A(g)(2)(A):

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

Under this section of the IRS code, you cannot be thrown in jail for not having health insurance. It is that simple. Well simple is not the right word as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is 906 pages long, and even by legal standards is fairly complex. But not going to jail over failure to pay the mandate tax, maybe someone in the Obama Administration should have explained this point, repeatedly.

26 USC § 5000A(g)(2)(B)(i)-(ii):

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—

(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or

(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

The IRS cannot file a lien or place a levy on a person for failing to pay the penalty created by the individual mandate.  So if Person A doesn't have health insurance, they will be slapped with an approximate $100 tax (fine); however the government cannot put Person A in jail, secure a lien, or place a levy.  Essentially as the law is written, there is no way for the government to get the money.  Therefore, if the individual mandate is the only section of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be struck down, it would seem consequence free for the Obama Administration. Yes that's right, the mean over-intrusive federal government is going to force you to have health insurance by doing nothing to force you to have health insurance.

Ass-hats.

I think the Obama Administration should  find an attorney and a cartoonist and have them come up with simple explanations for controversial laws, instead of having people just tune into Fox News where they hear stupid shit like death panels.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

The Birds & the Birds and the Bees & the Bees

I think it is time to have the talk. Yep this talk is about doing the nasty, which I want to remind the straight community is only a portion of what it means to be fantastic. But now and again, gay people do happen to have sex. Shocking, I know. I found the following video on Joe. My. God.




As a quick aside I want to comment on the behavior of the sign smasher. I cannot condone what this man did, even though I understand the sheer anger and frustration that he must have been experiencing. Hate only begets hate. Violence only begets violence. The Gay Community has its freedom of speech, as well as the drool-monkeys. The Community doesn't want to be silenced, so don't silence others, even if they are liars and bigots.

Showing hatred only detracts from the truth that Gay Rights is about love and tolerance. Yes, this man was simply acting as a human and defending himself and his community, yet the community has the arduous task of being more than human.

The portion of the video that really bothers me, though, is the asinine notion that gay people practice "gerbil stuffing." Nobody actually has done that. It is an urban legend. If you are dumb enough to believe that one, please, please, for your own safety, buy a skateboard helmet. And then wear it all the time. Don't take it off in the shower or for bed. You may not be smart enough to quite grasp the whole walking thing yet, and I really don't want to see you get hurt if you fall down. If this were true, the people who were doing it would be arrested for bestiality.

Really though I want to know why it's only gays who are on the hook for being sexual deviants in this country. Why don't those up-tight drool-monkeys go and protest straight porn shops (not that I think they should.) Anyway many things that gay people enjoy straight people also happen to enjoy.

Anal Sex.  It's not just for gay people.  Secondly, not all gay people have it.  I don't mean that some people are tops, and that some people are bottoms; I mean that some couples only ever have oral sex.

On a more frightening note, fisting is real. I'm not condemning it, nor am I endorsing it. If you do not know what fisting is, I would say you're probably lucky. If you do not want to know what it is, I would say just skip down to the next paragraph, but that too is graphic. Fisting is when a person uses a lot of lube and insert the full hand after normal foreplay. Some people actually do this and here are names of famous fisters:

Alana
Alisha Klass
Ariana 

Ashley Long.

Audrey Hollander

Autumn
Autumn Hayes

Belladonna 

Bridgette Kerkove
Carli Banks
Charlene Aspen
Chloe
Daniella Rush
Felecia
Isabella
Jasmine Lynn
Juliana Sterling
Julie Silver
Katja Kassin
Keisha Kylie Ireland
Kim Holland
Meridian
Phyllisha Anne

Taylor Moore
Taylor St. Clair
Trinity Max

Venus

I could go on, but I got bored with all the porn. Notice that this list is compiled of people who are all women (if not silicone). My point is that straight people also fist. Big shock. Straight people are just as horny, just as deviant, and just as curious as gay people. Even sexually gay people are just people, the main difference is they are attracted to persons of the same sex.

Here are a few other things that heterosexuals do that are kind of silly.
 
Crush Fetish. Eroticism due to objects being crushed. If your mate is attracted to having their genitals being abused just be careful.

Pissing. You know it's true love if she let's you urinate on her.  But if she asks to be urinated on...yeah.

Pegging. I think Dan Savage came up with the term. but it definitely is a straight thing. Why would gay men need a strap-on? Well I guess if a Crush Fetish went horribly wrong...

BDSM. Ever read Venus in Furs? Kafka did. Some people like to be tied down. Some people love to get dressed up in shiny suits of leather. Others love a good ol' spanking.

Whatever people do in their home is their prerogative, with limited exception.  As long as the participating parties are consenting adults and they get off by those activities, everything is gravy. 

And for the bigots and the hate-monkeys out there who hide behind their religion, a Christian God doesn't care what people shove up their asses; a Christian God is concerned for the poor, the starving and the homeless. Two years after a massive earthquake, 400,000 people are still displaced. or why not use that Saturday where they looked like a bunch of jackass to go down to the Salvation Army. 21% of children in America live in poverty, and many local Salvation Army offices have programs which provide backpacks filled with food to qualifying children. In fact anyone reading this, gay or straight should sacrifice some of their time to this awesome program. It would make a good post pride activity in fact. I think that would make Jesus happy.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Creationism is an Insult to God

If there is a god, this would-be-god would be probably pissed at Americans for pushing to start teaching Creationism again. I took an online Pew Quiz on Religion not too long ago (I scored 15 out of 15, though it was none too hard; I was also disappointed that there were no questions on Zoroastrianism or African Animism), and there was one question in particular that stood out to me.  Erroneously, 77% of the quiz-takers believed that public school teachers cannot read from the bible as an example of literature or as a historical document.

With that statistic in mind, when I was reading this Article from Pew, I had to laugh at all the drool spewing, anger-monkeys who do not know what they're talking about or voting for:

Despite that long series of court decisions, polls show that large numbers of Americans favor looser, not tighter, limits on religion in public schools. According to an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center, more than two-thirds of Americans (69%) agree with the notion that “liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religion out of the schools and the government.” And a clear majority (58%) favor teaching biblical creationism along with evolution in public schools. 

Do they not understand the whole First Amendment thing, or will shoe stores in the near future stock only Velcro shoes.  The legal history of the Establishment Clause is borne not from  the scourge of Atheism, but the long standing conflict between the Protestant Majority and the powerful Catholic Minority. In State ex rel Weiss v. District Board, 76 Wis. 177 (1890), Catholic parents objected to public schools reading from the King James Bible. They objected to having a different bible being along with the whole anti-Catholic sentiment thingy. The argument is as frequently "which god," as it is "is there a god." This Wisconsin Decision would latter be adopted (after years of Selective Inclusion) by the US Supreme Court. In Schempp and other similar decisions, the Court ruled in a manner that prohibits Compulsory and Established religious instruction.  Essentially, teachers can teach the bible, but they cannot preach the bible.

America is not a Christian Nation. America is a nation where the Majority chooses to be Christian. Our system is one million times greater than any theocracy or any possible right-wing  fantasy, simply because we are allowed a choice. True belief is never forced.

The second portion of the Pew article quote focuses on the teaching of Creationism in Biology classes. 58% of Americans are doing a disservice to their children by supporting Creationism. If there is a god, god created the Universe through the Big Bang, and life follows the principles of evolution.  We know this, we have seen life evolve in front of our eyes, and there is an indisputable fossil record. Saying god created the universe in a myth-like fashion, when we know better seems to me insulting.  The creation myth detracts from the beauty and wonderment of the true universe that god (possibly) created. 

The time between the Big-Bang and  the emergence of humans did not happen in 6 days. If it did, Adam would have been baked alive by the severity of the Cosmic Background Radiation.  And let's face it, every religion and every culture has it's own creation myth. Is the Biblical creation myth any easier to swallow than Heaven and Earth literally fucking us into existence, or a Crow stealing fire from the sun, or Atum masturbating the world into existence. With Cosmic Background Radiation Maps, charted Doppler Shifts in star systems and even galaxies, photos of deep space/ early universe from the Hubble Telescope, and basic understanding of atomic theory, scientists have put forward a more accurate model of the creation of the universe using math.Quel Horreur!

If there is a god, study science and give god proper praise for god's actual accomplishments, not the false nonsense in an ancient book.

Here's My version of the Great Sky Man that should offend:

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

What about My Freedom of Religion

I grew up Methodist. I thought for a while that the Church would allow gay-marriages or blessed unions depending on the legality of the state. My parents' pastor is very into gay rights and even holds a support group in a small town in America (scary).  If there were a god I would hope it is his. He is a man of peace, concerned for the poor, and a supporter of a more loving world.

It is a commonly held belief that gay-marriage is an infringement on religious liberty, which is a ridiculous statement that does not even hold up on first glance. Freedom of Association will allow individual churches the right to perform marriage and exclude gays if it is counter to their core beliefs. Many churches and religions outside of Christianity hold that having sex outside of marriage to be a sin while no longer holding homosexuality to be an inherent sin. By barring gay-marriage, Conservatives are pushing gays to choose either a life of abstinence or a life sin in the eye of their religion. The possibly for Christianity to accept homosexuality, and gay-marriage as a consequence, is quite likely.  While the Old Testament has a prohibition on homosexuality, the Gospel does not. In fact, the New Testament mentions the word 'Love' 179 times, while it mentions 'Hate' only 16 times, and 'Homosexuality' 0 times. In fact some Christian sects such the ELCA, individual UCC congregations, Anglican Church, not to mention the Reform Movement in Judaism, and various sects of Buddhism and Hinduism all accept Homosexuality. Many other Christian sects are divided on the issue.

If gay-marriage were actually accepted by the Methodist Church would it be an infringement of my religion to prohibit gay-marriage? Legally, based on past precedence as shown in  Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), gay-marriage wouldn't be protected on the grounds of freedom of religion; however, under the logic of Loving, gay-marriage should be protected under the Equal Protection Clause. As a logical argument, preventing gay-marriage would be an infringement of my religion as it prevents me from completing a religious sacrament. Furthermore allowing gay-marriage in no way interferes with anyone-else's rights.

The other common argument I hear against gay-marriage is that it will alter 3,000 years of marriage tradition. This is not a straw-man argument, Mitt Romney actually said that. What is traditional marriage?

According to this Princeton Article  and this Independent Article 1/6 of societies practice legal monogamy currently. Legal monogamy was a rarity during antiquity and even more so in prior eras. Most Christians should understand this, because Judaism of course was historically polygamous. And the Greco-Roman tradition of man on man rumpus wasn't lost to the ages. It wasn't until the merger of Christianity and the Roman Empire that lead to an ascetic marriage tradition. I do have to say though that I'm disappointing with history, and the fact that we didn't end up with a system of polygamous gay-marriage. I think we were kind of close to that possibility.

And once this system of marriage was created, it looked very different from the nuclear family of today.  Forced marriages were common place until the 19th Century. I really don't think anyone wants to go back to that tradition.

So if it isn't tradition or religious liberty, what else is there? Many people have a problem with the gay identity, and how the gayness is the only aspect of gay people's lives.  The way I see it, gay people do not want to be identified as being gay. They are simply people who happen to be attracted to men. Why is that evil? Where is the logic behind the morality?  With the boom in human population, mass starvation (yes people really are starving), and other population related issues, perhaps we should encourage gay people to live as gay (as opposed to living a miserable closeted life and having a family that will one day suffer the consequences.)

Believe it or not, logically gay people have more to gain than the heterosexual community has to lose by granting gay rights. In marriage, gays would gain a whole host of financial, mutual-property, and other legal rights that straight couples enjoy. More marriage is not about having children (which, unfortunately for a certain writer, many gay couples wish to have) but more is a contract for living together and preparing to be divorced. Seriously a lot of the marriage laws are about merger of property, division of property, inheritance, and other depressing aspects of life.

If it weren't for the history of bigotry and hatred there wouldn't really even be a gay culture. If it weren't for being forced into gay neighborhoods, if it weren't for lynchings and murders, if it weren't for the fear of losing one’s job due to outing, if it weren't for the bigotry, gay people wouldn't have formed a separate culture, and they would simply be people. 

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Nature is not so Natural

UPDATE: I found the full video, and to be fair the section of youtube was taken out of context. I'm not going to take down this post because I have heard many of the same arguments made by other people.   So I guess just pretend that Mr. Barber didn't say these things.
 
I stumbled upon this video, and it quickly became apparent that I need to comment on this idiocy. The video was uploaded to Youtube via Right Wing Watch. I found the transcript on Right Wing Watch's site.Not like this isn't a daily occurrence, we get to see Matt Barber make an ass of himself, Liberty Counsel, and thus ""Liberty" "University""(oh wait it actually is ABA accredited).

 

This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.

Let's deconstruct his argument chunk by chunk.

This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.

A tyranny of right, that sounds like a tyranny of freedom, which makes perfect sense. I have to give him credit, if you say something that is dumb enough it's like brain Novocaine, that way you won't notice the hate so much.Then he moves to how the act of gay sex is the only thing that identifies us.  It's never the love two people share, the emotional connections, the friendship, the stories, or the day-in-day-out same as strait people lives, it is always about the sloppy butt sex.  Yep for me it is.  I couldn't go to work because I was getting ass-fucked.  I couldn't get the mail because I was getting ass-fucked. Guess why I couldn't walk the dog. I digress.

This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. 

Once again a tyranny of rights.. Is this fucker trying to piss me off, or is does he seriously confuse liberty and oppression. I could live with one of those. Then he says it will replace the enumerated rights, what enumerated right will disappear? Well, tell me jackass. Which one goes bye-bye? That's what I thought.Next he says god wrote our original constitution. Great job on that slavery things asshole. And if you're omnipotent and omniscient why did you allow for amendments..

Ooh here he say's the constitution is predicated upon Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.  Yes because there are no such things a gay animals. Nope no such things as gay penguins.  I means seriously has he never been to the monkey section of the zoo. Chimpanzees are always "playing" with each other. Bonobo constantly giving out gay hand-jobs (well technically they are bi hand-jobs.) And just a side note when I end up in hell, I hope it's penguin hell.  He then says being gay violates these Law's of nature and thus the constitution res ipsa loquitur.

Let's look at the constitutional rights he list again:

Religious Liberty: Yes and which God hates the gays. If my God happens to think we all should be gay. Or more likely what if I am Buddhist, Hindu, Reform Jewish, or a Congregationalist.


Freedom of speech: Meh off the top of my head I have nothing clever for this one.

Freedom of association: Dear lord he's an idiot. First off, freedom of association is not a word for word constitutional right.  It is known as a penumbra. A good definition of penumbra come from Lawyers.com, "a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication from other rights explicitly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution."  Similar to privacy which was granted Griswold v. Connecticut. if the courts start eating away at the penumbras so goes free association.

Second what can be more of a freedom of association issue than choosing who you want to hang out with, date, love, have sex with,  live with, and eventually marry. Those are what the Gay Rights are all about.

The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.

Yes of course rights of the people cannot exist with the Constitution. And didn't Jesus say to be a Fish of Men.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Behind the Name

This is a bit of the reason why I titled this blog "Freedom Just For Me."

In 2010 a group of ultra rabid, foaming at the mouth, freedom hating, meh I could go on forever with insults Republicans had their collective Hate-Meters ramped up all the way to Def-Con 6.  The issue at hand was Park51, which they labeled as the Ground-Zero-Victory-Mosque.

Here is the mission statement provided by Park51:

Park51 will be a vibrant and inclusive community center, reflecting the diverse spectrum of cultures and traditions, and serving New York City with programs in education, arts, culture and recreation.

Inspired by Islamic values and Muslim heritage, Park51 will weave the Muslim-American identity into the multicultural fabric of the United States. Park51 aims to foster cooperation and understanding between people of all faiths and backgrounds through relevant programs and initiatives.

Wow that's gutsy as hell of them to quote Osama Bin Laden's First Video. The conservatives, who months prior dressed up in tricorne hats screaming that the government is takin' way all 'em freedumz, were petitioning New York City to make the Burlington Coat Factory a historical cite, thus preventing the construction of the Center. If you want to protest or boycott that is your right as a free citizen, but to take legal action through the Government to prevent people from practicing their religion, and it is especially terrible if you literally are waving a banner that reads "Liberty." I cannot imagine these people taking legal action to prevent a church from being built, or enjoying being on the receiving end of a government order.  They want freedom and the liberty to deny others the freedoms they enjoy.

Glaring hypocrisy aside, the problem with whole Ground Zero Mosque thing is that

A: Park51 is not on Ground Zero. It was previously a Burlington Coat Factory store;

B: Park51 is an inter-religious cultural center not a Mosque. Apparently they have had a workshop teaching children how to make bread. Quel Malheur;

C: By labeling Park51 as a  "Victory Mosque" they are implying Muslim-Americans are somehow in cahoots with Bin Laden.  It's saying that Muslim Americans are taking victory, even though Muslim-Americans were in that area prior to 9/11.

Equating all Muslims with the Al-Qaeda is like say all Americans are just like Fred Phelps. Speaking of the idiot, maybe this should be his next sign.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Double-Secret Protest Fun

I hate when politics falls into the fray of ad hominem rhetoric. It always ends starts there, and I inevitably tumble into the collective mindset. I had nothing personal against Mitt Romney before the early part of the year until I stumbled across the article Mitt Romney was a pro-war draft dodger who protested anti-war protesters.

Growing up, my dad always called himself a draft dodger for ducking into the National Guard. Vietnam was not going to be his legacy; he had no hatred for the denizens of that Asian Country. He wasn't rich (instead he poached deer); he wasn't well connected to influential people. Instead, he took the safe way out, but he never advocated for anyone-else's forced deployment to the jungle. 

If a hick from the sticks can show common decency, I do not think it is too much to ask of a Harvard Graduate and potential president. People change, people mature, forgiveness is a virtue; however sometimes it cannot be granted-- particularly when they march around teeming with machismo.

So I did what any non-rational person would do to keep myself from hate-vomiting: with the help of the Democratic Underground, I started Photoshopping the record.

I can do better.

Probably not.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me