Not Guilty Is Not Necessarily Innocent

Courtesy of Day by Day Cartoon comes this appropriate observation.

As others have pointed out, the difficulty of having a witness of poor character is the difficulty in presenting a credible case.  It does not mean that she wasn't raped in the first place.

The law can indeed be a bitch.  So can karma.  At the very least, it seems to me that karma paid a timely call on Mr. Strauss-Kahn.

Experience - The Greatest Teacher

Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution talks about being wrong about the Voting Rights Act of 1982.

Unfortunately — like so many measures designed to provide redress for historic wrongs — those racially gerrymandered districts also come with a significant downside: They discourage moderation. Politicians seeking office in majority-black or –brown districts found that they could indulge in crude racial gamesmanship and left-wing histrionics.

I think what she is reaching for [are] the positive benefits of assimilation.

What We Do....

link

Why We Loathe BIG Government

One of the most frustrating issues in my political life is the apparent lack of appreciation amongst my many leftish friends for the basis of my point of view.  I'm not looking for agreement.  Just an appreciation for why I believe the things I believe.

And "because yer nuts" doesn't count.

Slaying The Beast, Pen In Hand!

This Peggy Noonan article speaks to me and it speaks to the motivations of the Tea Party movement.  I have no idea how long the link will last as the article is supposed to be behind their firewall.  Here's another that might work.

If you write a column, you get a lot of email. Sometimes, especially in a political season, it's possible to discern from it certain emerging themes; the comeback of old convictions, for instance, or the rise of new concerns. Let me tell you something I'm hearing, in different ways and different words. The coming rebellion in the voting booth is not only about the economic impact of spending, debt and deficits on America's future. It's also to some degree about the feared impact of all those things on the character of the American people. There is a real fear that government, with all its layers, its growth, its size, its imperviousness, is changing, or has changed, who we are. And that if we lose who we are, as Americans, we lose everything.


...


And what I get from my mail is a kind of soft echo of this. America is not Greece and knows it's not Greece, but there is a growing sense,I should say fear, that the weighty, mighty, imposing American government itself, whether it meant to or not, has for years been contributing to American behaviors that are neither culturally helpful nor, as we now all say, sustainable: a growing sense of entitlement, of dependency, of resentment and distrust, and an increasing suspicion that everyone else is gaming the system. "I got mine, you get yours."


...


Because Americans weren't born to be accountants. It's not our DNA! We're supposed to be building the Empire State Building. We were meant, to be romantic about it, and why not, to be a pioneer people, to push on, invent electricity, shoot the bear, bootleg the beer, write the novel, create, reform and modernize great industries. We weren't meant to be neat and tidy record keepers. We weren't meant to wear green eye shades. We looked better in a coonskin cap!


There is I think a powerful rebellion against all this. It isn't a new rebellion - it was part of Goldwaterism, and Reaganism - but it's rising again.

Default On Your Mortgage? Why Not!

If it is good enough for the Mortgage Bankers Association, then it must be good enough for you!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mortgage Bankers Association Strategic Default
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Images of Mohammed

Most folks know of the serial kerfuffles that arose over various publications electing to print images of Islam's Prophet Mohammed.  A guy with the nom de guerre of "Zombie" has developed and maintains an online catalog of images of Mohammed.  Many of those images come from Arab countries.

The one that I like the most is this image of Mohammed that is currently on a wall/doorway in Iran.

Poke around....learn a little something....I found it fascinating.

After you get done with the art, you may as well try the letters.....from Muslims around the world.....to Zombie....telling him in very specific detail how they feel about his compilation.

Curiously, for a group that says it practices tolerance and peace, and as a group that expects tolerance and peace, they sure don't seem very tolerant or peaceful.  At least some of them don't.

A Timely Illustration - Cordoba House

I had suggested earlier that the Islamic center proposed by Cordoba House for a location unreasonably, IMHO, near the World Trade Center site would be misinterpreted by more radical Islamists as a sort of victory.  Over the weekend, the terrorist group Hamas confirmed that my concern was valid.

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there.


"We have to build everywhere," said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization's chief on the Gaza Strip.


"In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer," he said on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on WABC.

Then I learned that the face of Cordoba House, Feisal Abdul Rauf, had refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist group.

Hamas first came up in the mosque debate earlier this summer when Abdul Rauf refused to describe the group as a terrorist organization -- despite the State Department listing that identifies it as such.


Tom Brown, a chief opponent of the mosque, said: "This is what we've been saying . . . Imam Rauf is a radical Muslim who will not call Hamas a terror group."

Unlike Mr. Brown, I am not certain that Mr. Rauf is an extremist.  I believe he is a moderate in the mode of other Muslim moderates.  He either lacks the spine to actively oppose the terrorism that is being conducted in the name of his religion, or he finds those actions to be perhaps regrettable, but legitimate.

We frequently hear that Islamic Jihadism represents a small fraction of the Muslim world.  We hear that there are many, many more moderate Muslims that do not support Jihadism.

Yet what we see is that larger group of supposedly moderate Muslims that continue to sit on the sidelines and pretend that their religion is not involved in diabolical acts.  Even Fareed Zakaria's recent show illustrated the reluctance of supposed Muslim moderates to voice their opposition to extremism.

Such reluctance suggests to me that one of two things are true.  One is that extremism is a much larger force in Islam than most people are willing to admit.  Extremism that is capable of cowing so many moderates is not an insubstantial movement.

The other, less palatable suggestion is that these supposed moderates more or less approve of terrorist activities as a legitimate course of action.

In any case, if there is a shortage of mosques in New York, then they should build one.....elsewhere.  The current project is too close to the World Trade Center site to permit a mosque to be built there now.

Perhaps later, after Islam has experienced their version of the Reformation, it would be appropriate to build a mosque at the currently proposed site.  Perhaps when a nation's "Islamicity" is no longer a concern.  Perhaps when other religions are tolerated in Muslim societies.

Not now.

And yet.......

Every once in a while you need to listen to the arguments on the other side.  Or perhaps just other opinions.

Mr. Obama struck an appropriate note when he argued that Muslims have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to build places of worship in accordance with the usual local zoning regulations.  He also noted that he wasn't commenting on the wisdom of that particular project being built at that particular place and at this particular time.

Was it smart to select that location at this time for a new mosque?  Hell no.

Is it their absolute right....subject to the usual local zoning laws....absolutely.  You don't spend a serious chunk of your life defending the idea of religious freedom just to toss it aside willy-nilly.

Roger Simon has a piece that I read as sarcastic criticism of those that want Mr. Obama to follow the polls rather than leading the discussion.  I didn't think much of Mr. Clinton because he was such a poll follower.  I did think quite a bit of Mr. GW Bush because he wasn't.  I appreciate Mr. Obama's character because he does try to lead; even though his ideas as to what constitutes "good governance" appear to be predominantly useless garbage, socialistic claptrap, and statist.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has some similar thoughts to share.

Then I thought to myself....self, where are the other mosques/Muslim centers in New York City?  And where exactly is this current project going to be located?

Ahem...to the first issue and *cough*....to the second.

I would certainly not ask for those existing facilities to be torn down and a few are located a similar distance from the WTC site.  Therefore it is hard to see why a new mosque shouldn't be permitted in that area.

I also ran across this background piece on Salon.com that was very informative.  And thus it appears that the folks at Cordoba House never linked their project with 9/11 or the WTC site.  Their critics did.

Anyone who has never been snookered is free to cast the first stone.  You folks that still believe in Social Security need to sit down first.

Howard Kurtz repeats and amplifies on the Salon.com story.  He includes this from Mr. Rauf

'We want to push back against the extremists,' added Imam Feisal, 61.

                                      
Permit me to suggest that Mr. Rauf could "push back" more effectively if he could clearly identify and rebuke Hamas as a terrorist organization.  He might also be more effective if he declined to participate in projects designed to accurate measure the "Islamicity" of a government.  As with other faiths, anything more than a very low measurement is an indication of a problem to be solved.

So where does that leave us.

Does Cordoba House have a right to build a mosque at the proposed location?

Absolutely.  Without qualifiers.

In light of the statements from Cordoba House and the projects financiers indicating that a certain respect for certain sensibilities is required if one wants to build dialog, was this a good location for their project?

Certainly not.  Had they had any respect for the sensibilities of New Yorkers and Americans in general, they would have looked for a different site.  Such respect is apparently unidirectional.

What would I like to see happen?

One of two options.  Either they can find a more suitable location for their project, or they can stop being so "moderate" in their opposition to terrorism and governments based on sharia law.  Being a little less tolerant of the intolerance common among Islamic jihadists would a step in the right direction.  They should fully embrace the difficulties that all religious people have in living in a pluralistic and multi-cultural country.

And work towards a truly pluralistic and multi-cultural world.

And what if I don't get my way?  What if they continue to be tolerant of intolerance and still want to build the mosque in that spot?

So be it.  Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our country.

As is freedom of speech.  And my right to grouse and complain about their project is equally important with their right to build a mosque and worship as they please.

The right to worship as one pleases does not mean that your religion may never be criticized.  Welcome to the free world, folks.

Everybody Draws Mohammed Day

As any person with a moderate level of political and social awareness should know, some guy started a Facebook page encouraging "everyone" to draw a picture of the prophet revered by the world's Muslims.  The reasoning behind this stunt is to push the belligerent and extremists among the world's Muslims into doing something stupid.

It isn't too far afield from the several "protests" held in the United States where people walk, ride bikes, go to work in the nude as a way of protesting....something.  Their reasoning goes that if you are offended by the sight of female nipples, then the protesters are going to bombard you with lots of nekkid female nipples until your brain ess-plodes or you develop some tolerance for having nekkid female nipples within your field of view.  Or penises.....penisi....

Or the Vag.

In any case, that is the logic...such as it is...behind that Facebook page. [now shut down.....Google is your friend]

Mark Steyn isn't enthused with the idea, but he does commiserate with these agents provocateur.

I'm bored with death threats. And, as far as I'm concerned, if that's your opening conversational gambit, then any obligation on my part to "cultural sensitivity" and "mutual respect" is over. The only way to stop this madness destroying our liberties is (as Ayaan Hirsi Ali puts it) to spread the risk. Everybody Draws Mohammed Day does just that. Various websites are offering prizes. I only wish we could track down those sicko Danish imams* who drew their prophet as a pig, and send them the trophy.

Mutual respect should mean just that.  An understanding that there are actions that are offensive and a mutual desire to avoid stepping on the other person's toes.  Listening to NPR a little bit ago, I learned that the Muslims of Pakistan not only approved of their government's blocking access to Facebook, but they also view such things as acts of terrorism that require the immediate creation of international laws to protect their delicate eyeballs.

So we know freedom of expression isn't high on their list of priorities.

Ann Althouse is a bit more firm in her opposition to EDMD.  

I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).

The trick, IMHO, is to get those millions of Muslims that do not threaten violence to perceive their "own interests" to be best served by actively opposing the few belligerent extremists instead of simply remaining quiet and on the sidelines.  The intolerant are not deserving of tolerance.

That generates the larger question of when it is appropriate to do such things.  I recall our beloved daughter telling the story about a class she took at UNLV where the subject of flag burning was discussed.  Most of the class thought that flag burning was a right.  She stood fast in her belief that you shouldn't burn the flag because of the emotional pain caused to those that possess a deep respect for the flag.

Stop for a moment and read that again.  Those kids were having two different conversations.  One wanted to talk about rights.  The other wanted to talk about responsibilities.

We seem to do a lot of that these days.

In any case, I firmly support the right of anyone to burn the flag, show off their nipples, or to draw the so-called Prophet Mohammad.  At the same time, such things shouldn't be done for purposes as low as "because I can".

Mostly.

The recent Facebook stunt seems to fall pretty well within that limit.

Getting Paid

Over at Glenn Reynold's place is an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article about spiraling government employee wages.

There was a time.....a long time ago.....when government jobs were not the best paying jobs around, but you had pretty good benefits and generally had pretty good working conditions.  If you wanted to make really good money, you went into the private sector.

Not so today.  A variety of factors [unionization trends, absence of any motive to slow wage and benefit growth, etc.] have combined over the last 40 years to reverse that situation.

And the problem just keeps getting worse.

Just In Case Someone Forgets...

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself on a worthy cause; who at the best in the end knows the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

—Theodore Roosevelt, "The Man in the Arena"