Trying to wrap my head around this whole mosque thing.  Help me out.

A faith, any faith, buys land to build a church.  The Mormons come to town in dribs and drabs and eventually they have enough Mormons in town to justify building a ward.  They go buy some land; they hire the contractors, and build a church.  Big deal.

The Catholics decide they need to build a new church in Nevada somewhere, because they have a population of Catholics, which has grown enough to make it more comfortable to have an extra church rather than everyone squeezing in to one.  They buy the land, hire the contractors, and build the church.

The Methodists, the Seventh Dayers, the Moonies, the Scientologists, whoever it is, buys the land where ever they want, hires the contractors, builds a church or a reading room or a worship center or even just a quiet place to think about the man in the sky.  The Salvation Army wants to open a mission downtown to cater to the needs of the homeless and the hookers. The Church of Dan wants to declare his living room a holy shrine to Ayn Rand. Whatever.  Each and every one of these people has been told yes, because for some reason, they had to ask permission of some governing body for it.  Whether that was simply for tax free status of the property taxes given to a ‘legitimate’ church or whether is was for a tax dodge, some govt official had to say yes or no.

And that is the problem.

At some point, we the people allowed churches to have tax free status because we respected the work they do or just to promote the status quo or even because we secretly wanted some semblance of state notice that our churches were ‘real’ because they got treated special.

So now come these guys who want to build a mosque.  Not just any mosque, but named for freaking Cordoba, the virtual capital of Moor occupied Spain.  And not just any place, but in the still bleeding heart of an American tragedy.

Can anyone, ANYONE, show me where in the Constitution we are guaranteed the right to not be offended?

No? Really? I thought maybe it was in the good and plenty clause I’ve been hearing about lately but can’t seem to find either.  Perhaps it is contained in that whole “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” line and a mosque makes you unhappy. Oh wait, that was the DoI, not the USC.  Hmmm. Help me out here, really.

Do we, as a country, REALLY want our government to tell ANYBODY what he or she can’t do with his or her private property?   I know that I for one was outraged by the Supremes telling the country it was ok for a local government to take land from homeowners and give it to a developer.  How is this different?

Irrespective of the religion being honored, do we really want our government, at any level, to fold, spindle, mutilate, or create law just to keep that religion from practicing what it feels to be its due honoring to their version of God?

And if so, what next?  Do we tell the Scientologists they can’t give away free literature on the steps of their church?  To we stop the Mormons from going door-to-door? Are hospitals run by the Shriners, or the Catholic Church, or the Jewish told they can’t expand to serve their community by adding on a children’s wing because they would have to buy land and the land they want to buy (which the owner wants to sell!!!) is somehow too tragic because a fire there killed two kids and their mother.  Are we to assume that anyplace, anywhere, where someone has died is somehow too perverse or tragic or historical or whatever for a private owner to build a church there?

I somehow am betting that there will be a shrine to the dead placed in Shanksville, if there isn’t one already.  But will the place over Texas, Palestine ironically, where the Colombia broke up on re-entry have a building halt handed down because it is somehow rude to the crew members families to build a Baptist church, or even a freaking Qwikiemart, NEAR where it happened?

This is not about whether or not we, as a people, agree with the deliberate slap in the face the mosque and community center builders want to deliver to us.  Especially since they have chosen September 11 as the dedication date.  They are absolutely trying to get a reaction from us.  They WANT us to either halt the deal so they can say “Look, the Americans are breaking their own Constitution to stop us from building this” or to let it go through so they can say “Look, the Americans are so weak they didn’t even try to stop us from building this.”  Either way, they get their propaganda. Either way, they can turn to their Muslim brethren and boast about how they outwitted us.

Only ONE way makes us change who we are as a people though.

Only ONE way weakens our own law, our contract with our children and ourselves.

Only ONE way leads to somebody with bad intentions turning up the volume and saying, “Whom can we mess with next.”

I think I would rather be called coward and know that it isn’t true than be called bully and know that it is.

It strikes me (hah, see what I did there) that if we really gave a shit about ending domestic violence that we wouldn’t be the least bit fucking concerned about “shocking” the audience.  

The audience, in my opinion, needs a good fucking shock.

I swear to Zog, sometimes I feel as if we’re all caught up in some Hollywood slush pile-reject conspiracy flick, starring D-List winners like Mark Dacascos and Tia Carrere.  

Some opponents of wind turbine farms in Maine say they’re concerned not just about audible noise but “low-frequency noise, so soft you can’t hear it,” from the installations, which they claim is linked to a wide array of health problems, not to mention “the strobe effect created by the sun setting behind the spinning blades, which some say can lead to seizures”. 

Oh. Mah. Gad.  

First off, what kind of a moron is standing there watching turbine blades going around??  A work-shirking Class Two moron, that’s what kind.  <irritated supervisor>Get back to work, ya fucking slacker!  Oh, and stop looking at the fucking wind turbines, ‘cos they’ll make you dizzy.  Xst, my five year old got more sense than you.</irritated supervisor>

But there’s plenty of medical data to support a potential ban, right?  RIGHT???

Aniel says he, six other physicians and one family nurse practitioner believe the conditions they’ve found online – things called “acoustic radiation” and “wind turbine syndrome,” among them – and the possible symptoms – nausea, back problems, mood disorders, seizures, even heart attack – are serious enough to stall new wind projects while medical researchers around the world gather more information.

Yeah, not so much.  Just a work-shirking moron of a doctor and his cohorts, all who appear to have waaay too much fucking Intertubes-surfing time.  If I were the administration of that hospital, I’d be Asking Some Questions.

(Via Overlawyered)

You know, I really don’t have time for this foolishness:

If you think the biggest problem with a camera phone is the poor quality of the photos, a member of Congress might make you think again. Earlier this month, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would ban camera phones from having a silent mode when taking a picture.

The Camera Phone Predator Alert Act (H.R. 414) would “require any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken.” What’s more, the bill would prohibit such handsets from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone. Enforcement would be through the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The text of the bill is short, and King’s office has not released any public statements. Yet, the reasoning behind the legislation is clear. The text states that “Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.”

Hey, here’s a thought:  instead of punishing those who have done nothing wrong, how about we take all the child abusers, trace their own abuse backwards, and permanently sterilize absolutely everyone involved, thereby eradicating the fucked-up genes responsible for this madness in the first place.  

Then, of course, make the punishment for actually abusing a child a .45 to the back of the head.

There, problem solved.

Man, it’s a Sunday, I should be lazing about watching the kids play with their Xmas Wii, but instead I gotta write about these angsty bitches at Starbuck’s, who think the baristas need unionizing.

Yeah, I just used “baristas” and “unionizing” in the very same sentence.  I’ll have to check but that could very well be one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

First, you emo fuckers, if your job title is in ANOTHER LANGUAGE, then the odds of your workplace being A) dangerous, or B) exploitative, are very nearly zero.  

Second, if your bosses were actually working your soft, pink fingers to the bone, you’d really only have to step down the street to the offices of WPUTZ, Channel 42 (Cleveland’s #1 News Station!!) and tell your heartrending little story – complete with video of your threadbare green t-shirt, your sweaty brow, and that callus on your little finger – to publicize their inhumane treatment, and immediately convene Congressional hearings on your behalf.  

Third, just how dangerous is it being a barista?  Well, since I was one during my college days, let’s recap:

1. Slippery floors?  Nope, non-skid mats are required in tiled areas, checked once a month by health inspector.
2. Sharp, pointy things?  Pretty much just the knife used to slice the bagels.  Oh, and that second shift bitch’s tongue.  WHY won’t she sleep with meeee???
3. Dangerous levels of heat/radiation/toxic waste?  Well, the espresso machine is pretty gnarly at the end of the day, but even a three year old would understand, “don’t touch the hot part, ok honey?”

So, no…no reason whatsoever for prissy little fucks who assemble over-priced caffeine beverages in air-conditioned comfort to form a fucking UNION.  What we have here is a handful of delusional pricks who just can’t believe their great-grandpas/-mas, got all the fun of being social activists, despite the fact that they were actually DYING in their workplaces, not merely suffering from debilitating steam burns on their widdle pitters.  

Hell, it’s easier than doing something REALLY meaningful.  Like finishing college and getting a real job.

Now just where does this Todd J. Zywicki fella get off using actual LOGIC??

 While Washington tries to arrange a bailout, the Detroit Three auto makers and their union, the United Auto Workers, keep insisting that bankruptcy would be the kiss of death. Not so: a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing will likely result in a stronger domestic industry.

…

General Motors looks like a financially failed rather than an economically failed enterprise — in need of reorganization not liquidation. It needs to shed labor contracts, retirement contracts, and modernize its distribution systems by closing many dealerships. This will give rise to many current and future liabilities that may be worked out in bankruptcy. It may need new management as well. Bankruptcy provides an opportunity to do all that. Consumers have little to fear. Reorganization will pare the weakest dealers while strengthening those who remain.

Seriously, who is allowing this subversive claptrap to go to print?  Off with their heads!

What she said, about What They Said.

Courtesy of KingsideRook (though taken here wildly out of context), your wisdom for today:

The solution to “how do I…” is nearly always “Hit it” and when it’s not “Hit it,” it’s “Hit it harder.” The few rare exceptions to this rule are always “Grind some off.”

(more…)

Look, Gheys, the sad fact is that most of us don’t give two shits about with whom you choose to enjoy Flesh Sessions, we just want you to FUCKING SHUT UP ABOUT IT.  

What, exactly, is wrong with “domestic partnership”?  The insurance bennies?  Erm, aren’t most companies hep to the jive these days?

Is it the not officially “husband” and “wife” thing?  Those are just words, homies, call yourselves whatever the fuck you like.

Personally – and my Heinlein roots are totally going to show here – I LOVE the idea of contract marriages.  Not that I’m interested in trading in Mister Liberty Girl AT ALL, but doesn’t it just make sense to have options for those who are, er, impaired in the commitment area?  For instance, a 1 year, no-progeny contract is a nice way to try someone out, put ‘em through their paces as it were.  A 20 year, progeny-specific contract might work for others.  The combinations could be endless, all contracted, pre-arranged, and absolutely enforceable by law.

It all sounds perfectly logical, but humans so rarely ARE that it would just never work in the real world.  Most people are morons, emotional idiots to boot, and it’s only through religious indoctrination that the majority of them convinced to marry and provide for their issue in any meaningful fashion.  Grar.

By show of hands, who thinks the impetus for this article has more to do with the author’s NFL fandom than an actual grasp of the Constitution, legal system, and/or logic?

New York Giants star receiver Plaxico Burress is facing a mandatory 3½ years in prison and the end of his football career. His crime? Not having a license, which New York City never would have issued him, for the exercise of his constitutional right to bear arms.

To be sure, Mr. Burress got caught because of what appears to have been stupid and irresponsible behavior connected with the handgun. But he does not face prison for shooting himself. His impending mandatory sentence highlights the unfairness and unconstitutionality of New York City’s draconian gun laws.

Feel a tiny tear trickle down your cheek at the thought of a football player – traditionally the most over-priveleged group in modern society – losing his “career” due to his inability to grasp the fact that laws apply to EVERYONE, not just the “little people.”  

More quotes from this piece the WSJ is very careful to place under the OPINION section are surely in order…

It appears that he put the unholstered gun in the waistband of his sweatpants, and when it slipped, he grabbed for it, accidentally hitting the trigger. To make matters worse, according to press accounts, he was seen drinking and may have been consuming alcohol — which all firearms safety training (including the class he would have been required to take for his Florida permit) absolutely forbids for people handling guns. And of course Mr. Burress’s handgun should have been holstered to prevent unintentional movement of the trigger. Fortunately, his negligent discharge did not harm anyone else.

Anyone who has ever concealed carried is right now saying, “Jesus Fucking Christ On A Monkey!” at the image of someone carring a gun WITHOUT a holster, in the waistband of SWEATPANTS.  I mean, godDAMN, even Glocks are fairly heavy, and not wearing a belt to keep the pants up, and secure the holster, officially means you’re too fucking stupid to carry the thing, licensed or not.

Mr. Burress’s behavior was bad. However, Mr. Burress is not facing prosecution for carelessness, but simply for carrying a weapon. This is unjust and perhaps unconstitutional. 

Oh joy, another half-asser who fancies himself a Constitutional Scholar.  The basis for this idiotic comment is D.C. v. Heller, which as you all know, overturned D.C.’s fuckstupid handgun ban, thereby disappointing many nascent fascists.  However, the “logic” applied is, well, nonexistent:

The Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York’s discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.

Bloody hell.  You know, I am absolutely in favor of every law-abiding citizen having the means to protect themselves, and I’m super excited about it being done by a sexy piece of hardware capable of throwing a projectile in excess of 800 feet per second, but things still work exactly like they used to – if you don’t like a law, GET IT CHANGED, either by voting out the clownshoes wot proposed it, or petitioning the like-minded to call for a popular vote to overturn it.  You can’t just stomp your widdle foot and say, “not fair!” and expect things to Harry Potter themselves around to just the way you like them.  

Yes, NY’s lack of reciprocation for the properly-licensed sucks, but you can’t just IGNORE it and expect to walk, regardless of how many touchdowns you score.   You ain’t special, son.

*Yes, that was indeed a Dallas Cowboy slam, kthx.