"Ground Zero Mosque"

by VorJack

This is one of the most dishonest and over-the-top political ads I’ve ever laid eyes on:

YouTube Preview Image

How much dishonesty can you pack into sixty seconds? Let’s count off a few:

1. “They”? “They” who? If you’re trying to blame all Muslims for the actions of Al Qaeda, you’re going to have to do a better job than that.

2. It’s not a 13 story Mosque, it’s a cultural center called the “Cordoba House“. That’s kind of an obscure reference. Cordoba, Spain, during the early middle ages was one of those rare places that Islam, Christianity and Judaism existed side by side without too much friction (as near as historians can tell). Understanding that makes it’s purpose pretty clear.

3. It’s not at Ground Zero, or looking down on Ground Zero as some have suggested. It’s three or four blocks north of the site.

… and so on.

  • http://chaoskeptic.blogspot.com Iason Ouabache

    Proof that conservatives don’t really care about freedom of religion or property rights. Plus they aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they are using scare tactics. They could have made the video shorter by saying “Booga booga! Scary brown people with guns!”

    • Jasowah

      I was pretty scared. By then end of it, if I didn’t think about what they were saying, I would’ve just wanted an authority figure to tell me what to do to be safe from these people.

      • yahweh

        So you wanted Bush and Cheney back telling us that they were raising the Terrorist Threat level to Orange or Red.

  • http://www.jeffandwendy.wordpress.com Jeff

    It reminds me of the most recent White Collar episode. “They’re trying to stop me from building a park for the kids.”

  • Bill

    …And that kids, is what happens when you leave fox news on for too long.

    • yahweh

      But wait, I thought they were fair and balanced?

      fox news = porn for tea baggers

  • Olaf

    In my opinion it is very unwise to build a mosque there for anyone. It will be used in Islamic propaganda to show that they have conquered the US in their holy war. Bad for the US people and bad for the good Muslims since their mosque will get a bad name soon when the mosque turns up in the Islamic propaganda clips.

    • Roger

      …I’m assuming your realize that they’re not building a mosque “there.”

    • Yoav

      If you really want anything can be used for propaganda. Just look how fix noise take non-stories like the Sharrad speech and the new black panther party and turn them on their head in service of their “Black people are coming for you” scare campaign.

  • Screechy

    What Olaf said. It’s not named the “Cordoba Initiative” for any kind of reference to a utopia where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together in harmony. Jews and Christians were subjects of Islam in Cordoba, and had to pay a tax for *not* adhering to the Islamic faith. When the Muslims conquered Spain in the 8th Century, they placed a mosque in the city of Cordoba over the foundation of a razed Catholic cathedral. The name represents a conquest of the West, and is not an accident. Perhaps that is why they’ve shuffled to rename the project “Park51″? Imagine the shouts and cries of protest if the Catholic Church had tried to place a “prayer center” in the heart of Kabal and called it “Tours House”.

    They own the land now. They can build whatever they want, but I don’t want to hear a single Muslim shout “Islamophobia!” when there are regular and persistent protests in front of this place.

    • Roger

      Your screen name is quite apt. Did you even bother to read the post? Further, what was that little “history lesson” supposed to do? Are you trying to say that the community center that will be two or three blocks from the World Trade Center site is some sort of attack on Judaism and Christianity? Again, what was the point of your first paragraph?

      Your second paragraph is just plain stupid. If there are “regular and persistent protests” simply because that place is frequented by Muslims, isn’t that the very definition of Islamophobia? Of course you wouldn’t want to hear “a single Muslim shout ‘Islamophobia’”–it might make you have to think about your xenophobia.

      • burpy

        Screechy, you obviously didn´t have time to finish the history lesson. You forgot to mention that it was standard practice in those times to convert conquered enemies´ churches into mosques and vice versa. It happened many times over. You also didn´t have time to mention that there is now a hideous cathedral plonked in the middle of the Cordoba mosque, right inside what was one of the most beautiful buildings in Europe. Emperor Carlos V said of it; “You have destroyed something unique in the world and replaced it with something commonplace”

        • h.C.

          Screechy,
          what you say was also the first thought I also had. The name “Cordoba” was chosen only to support the 19th century revisionism of the situation in southern Spain during the Caliphat, a revisionism invented to fight antisemitism in Europe and especially in Germany end 19th century, I see no other reason to chose this name. It is adding insult to injury.

    • Peacemonger613

      Actually, during the 8-11th centuries there was relative peace among Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Cordoba, which was a center of learning at the time. Poll taxes based on religion, ethnicity, or occupations were common throughout the ancient world at that time also, Christian countires included, who were forever soaking the Jews. (And in Christian-ruled some places, Jews were not allowed to build a synagogue that was taller or fancier than a church. Sound familiar?) Muslim Cordoba was not a oerfet world, but paying a tax was far better for Jews than what happened when the Christians united Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492: All Jews and Muslims were ordered to convert to Chrisitanity, leave, or die. Isabella’s confessor, Torquemada, then instituted the Inquisition. So really, the Ground Zero Cross in this video has its bloody side, too.

  • nazani14

    Can the World Trade Center even be seen from the new building? I heard it was two blocks away, not three or four.
    What I would like to know is where the money came from. That’s pricey real estate. If there were a drive to raise money for this among US Muslims, you’d think some reporter would have gotten wind of it long before the land was purchased.

    • Peacemonger613

      A 13-story building in Manhattan is nothing, it would be lost among the skyscrapers. People in flat rural America who have never been to NYC are picturing it “towering” above Ground Zero but really, it won’t be visible from there.

      From what I have read, the congregation is made up mostly of native New Yorkers who happen to be among the 800,000 Muslims living peacefully in NYC (which already has about 100 mosques, so no big deal if there is one more.)

  • kjpweb

    Cut them some slack. It’s the GOP for crying out loud. Being accurate, truthful or correct never was on their agenda. Let’s be hateful, condemning and intolerant first. We can backtrack later, when the damage is done and no one is paying attention.

    • Amak

      You think the Liberals are any better? All politicians are liars one way or another.

      I’m also curious as to where they got the money for this… had to set them back by a LOT.

      • Elemenope

        You think the Liberals are any better?

        Over the last twenty-five years or so, that would be an unqualified YES.

  • http://combatingreligion.blogspot.com Curious_Scholar

    That video scared the hell out of me. Between that guys voice, the belligerent lies, and saying ‘kill the ground zero mosque” – I am terrified.

    holy crap.

    • JohnMWhite

      I think the best part was the opening caption – “The Audacity of Jihad”.

      Face, meet palm.

  • Erp

    Olaf, et al.

    (1) Muslims live and work in that area, including in the World Trade Center on the day of the attack and among the groups that responded to aid (some were killed), a lot of them judging that the other mosques in the area are overcrowded during worship times. Note the place is already used as a mosque, should that be shut down?

    (2) Lower Manhattan is dense, two city blocks is quite a distance. Certainly far enough apparently for some strip joints.

    (3) This is primarily a community center named after what may have been the most open city in the world at that time (not ideal but the position of Jews was probably unsurpassed and the position of Christians was better than that of any Muslim community in the Christian ruled areas). It is a community center that will be usable by all the community of lower Manhattan (pool which given the heat in NYC some residents would probably want open now, restaurant, meeting rooms, etc). And yes it will include a mosque and be run by Muslims, so what? It is not as though the city is using tax payer money to build it. And it is telling that most of the local area seem to support it.

    • James G

      It’s always amused me that New York is America’s beating heart when Republicans can use it to push their agenda, but the second it becomes inconvenient, it’s suddenly a big elitist city that doesn’t understand The Real America™. Incidentally, 85% of Americans live in urban or suburban areas and only 15% live in small, rural towns and villages.

    • Olaf

      ERP Muslims already have a bad name because of terrorists. This building is going to backfire and make it even harder for them.

      If you want to build a mosque there, wait 100 years or so and then build it.

      • Custador

        They don’t want to build a mosque. They don’t want to build anything at Ground Zero. The whole story is an excuse for hate-mongering. This is a self-confessed Islamophobe telling you this.

      • Yoav

        How far does the mosque has to be before its offense field is weak enough. Will 10 blocks do, outside of Manhattan, outside the state of NY, on Jupiter? I don’t know the organization behind the center but I’m sure we would have seen “BREAKING NEWS: NY MOSQUE AFFILIATED WITH AL-QEIDA” banners on fix noise by now if they could show that the janitor’s second cousin have been to Africa five years to the day when Osama Bin-laden’s 2nd grade teacher’s niece have bought tickets to the lion king.

      • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

        Olaf, you’re full of excrement. Wait a 100 years? Because some jumped-up xenophobes don’t like it? Isn’t that special…kinda like when white folks were all “Civil Rights is moving too fast! Black folks should wait until we’re ready to not be racist douchebags!”

        • Olaf

          Because those jumped-up xenophobes,is going to misuse the energy and feed it back in hate. Those jumped-up xenophobes will try to provoke you into aggression and use that as an excuse for their cause. It will hurt innocent Muslims in the end.

          A better tactic would then to have a place where any religion can setup up his church temple. Invite the Jews to have their worshipping place there too, invite the Hindus even the order of the Jedi… A place of peace where ALL religions are equally accepted and live next to each other peacefully. Maybe Muslims can go and visit Hindu temples or Jewish locations…

          • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

            Oh, that’s rich. Ask–nay, require Muslims to do something you wouldn’t ask any Christian organization within 25 square miles around “Ground Zero” to do. I love how you’re alleging concern for “innocent Muslims.” The disingenuity is astounding. .

          • wintermute

            A better tactic would then to have a place where any religion can setup up his church temple. … A place of peace where ALL religions are equally accepted and live next to each other peacefully.

            The Founding Fathers tried to set up such a place. Unfortunately, it didn’t take.

            What makes you think you can do better?

          • Elemenope

            Because those jumped-up xenophobes,is going to misuse the energy and feed it back in hate. Those jumped-up xenophobes will try to provoke you into aggression and use that as an excuse for their cause. It will hurt innocent Muslims in the end.

            A better tactic would then to have a place where any religion can setup up his church temple. Invite the Jews to have their worshipping place there too, invite the Hindus even the order of the Jedi… A place of peace where ALL religions are equally accepted and live next to each other peacefully. Maybe Muslims can go and visit Hindu temples or Jewish locations…

            Holy crap. *Actual* concern trolling.

    • http://fantasy-clay.com Susan

      What cracks me up is New Yorkers probably are less concerned than the politicians. It’s a mix of everybody there. Check out the subways. It’s like a shrug to them.

  • Erik

    EPIC voice.

    • James G

      And a great trailer. I’m definitely seeing the movie when it comes out.

  • Tabbie

    This is typical fare I have come to expect living in USA.

  • Phil Bear

    Does this remind anyone else of “The War Prayer” by Mark Twain?

  • CaptTu

    Funny how the comments for that video have been disabled… I’ll just throw out a guess that the comments were not agreeing with the video.

  • Angie

    Rediculous! AS if Americans would allow such a thing…13 stories…please! This is stupid…yet another example of the psychological warfare waged in our country by the GOP….maybe they need to reexamine what TRUTH means!

  • UrsaMinor

    It is telling how no conservatives are rushing to defend the mosque under the banner of religious freedom.

  • Siamang

    Only 13 stories?

    I’m amazed they didn’t say it would be 666 stories.

    • Ty

      As we all know, thirteen spelled backwards is 666.

  • fftysmthg

    Protests against the building of any Faith based organizations is fine by me.

  • Andy

    I think Democrats should make a scary video like this whenever a christian church is about to be built next to an abortion clinic.

  • Verdugo13

    “This ground is sacred.” Further proof that money is the one true god.

    • Ty

      Money beats all the other gods in at least one way. At least money can be proven it exist.

      • burpy

        but does it really exist?

      • trj

        Is this where I pull a Brian and point out that money has no objective value and so therefore cannot be God?

      • Jasowah

        I’d guess that more people praise it than any God too.

        I could name 20 Christians in my small town, HELL, in my immediate area, that hold money above God. Of course, they are not True Christians (TM).

      • Yoav

        Money can get me a cup of coffee and a cookie, god can only get me killed (well, god’s followers).

      • UrsaMinor

        Money exists only if belief in it is maintained.

        • Ty

          Nope. The *value* of money is maintained through consensus, but the physical object ‘money’ exists whether we choose to believe in it or not.

          • Kodie

            It’s just paper if it doesn’t have any value. Like, one time, I got a roll of quarters, and I found an odd coin inside I thought might be foreign currency, but it was a token from some carnival. If I can’t pay it to the washing machine, it’s not money, and if that carnival has been dismantled, it’s not even a token to exchange for goods or services. That’s what money is if we don’t agree to value it.

            • Ty

              And yet, even worthless money still has a physical existence.

            • Custador

              Well…. Yes and no! Certainly central-bank money physically exists, but the majority of money only exists as debt, i.e. numbers on a ledger – it has no physical presence at all.

            • trj

              @Custador:

              Just to take things to the pedantic extreme, since it appears to be that kind of discussion – all information has a physical presence. Whether it is stored in the magnetic orientation of crystalites on a hard drive or as analog numbers written in ink on paper or what have you.

            • James Getgood

              All British banknotes have written on them the sentence “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds.” When I was a kid, I always wondered what you’d get if you took £20 to a bank.

            • wintermute

              It used to be, you’d get 20 pounds of Sterling Sliver. Nowadays, you’ll get two ten pound notes.

  • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

    If we accept as axiomatic that a religion should not be allowed to build anything of its own at or near the site of an atrocity that it was responsible for, this means all the Christian churches in and around Jerusalem have to be dismantled. This was, after all, the site of the “Jerusalem massacre” in 1099; upon entering the city at the end of their siege, the Crusaders slaughtered nearly everyone they found … Muslims, Jews, and possibly even some eastern Christians.

    This principle also means many European churches need to be torn down, because Christians committed atrocities in some locations there, too: Massacres occurred e.g. at Beziers in 1209, at Verden an der Aller in 782, among many other places. All the churches in all those locations need to be torn down, then, also.

    Actually I’m all for this principle being applied. However, I’m betting that most of these ardent Christians will want to apply it only to Islam and not to their own religion.

    • JohnMWhite

      A good point. And if we are to maintain this principle, then every Christian church in the Americas should be torn down, given the atrocities committed by Christians in their quest to steal the continents from its native inhabitants. Somehow, I have a feeling that won’t count.

      • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

        Well, not “every” town in the US was the site of an atrocity against native Americans. There were plenty of them, to be sure — and each of them was one too many — but not in every location.

        Even so, that still means a lot of churches in the US would have to go. Perhaps most of them … I have no idea about the local history of each … but likely not every single last one.

        • JohnMWhite

          I was really saying the whole continent was the site of an atrocity, rather than individual towns.

    • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

      Oh, and we should tear down every Baptist church in the Southeastern U.S. You know, that whole slavery thing…and, before I forget, that whole problem of Christians wholeheartedly participating in the heinous practice of lynching.

      • Ty

        Boy, it must really piss off the native Americans that the Spanish built missions all over the land they got by killing the original inhabitants off.

      • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

        Hmm. I wonder how many of those southern lynchings took place in churchyards?

  • http://www.johnmcangry.com McAngry

    I’m against ANY religious building being built anywhere in the United States until they start paying taxes on the land like everyone else has to do.

    But I think Pat Condell is right about the symbolism — it doesn’t matter what it means to us, it matters what it means to them and how it will be used by many to demonstrate their “conquest” of the US. (Pat has a video about it on YouTube for anyone who is interested.)

    • Kodie

      I agree with you in theory, and I like Pat Condell’s videos when I take time to watch them, but on the other hand, this is as good a statement as any to disturb the Christians. They’re too comfortable, and they’re equally dangerous. Make them put up with it, let them know the freedom of religion extends to all faiths, not just theirs. I think this is perfect just the way it is. The willful presence of religious diversity is pretty important, I think, to atheism. Keeping the mosque out of wherever it wants to be will not keep muslims from existing, nor keep them from plotting if they are intent on plotting, no matter what control over that the xenophobes think they’d have by prohibiting this structure. They are just whining because other people want some religious freedom, just like gays want to marry, somehow this threatens their turf, their standards, their institutions, and takes away any illusion of control they think they have. Well, good.

      Also, no on taxing religious institutions – we had something about this before, and it only makes more sense to keep the government out of it, whether that’s a financial advantage to them or not. It’s not fair they don’t have to pay taxes, but gov’t intervention is not preferable for a number of reasons that made sense to me at the time, but which I cannot readily recall at this moment! I’ll have to look that up to refresh my memory if necessary.

  • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

    To claim that the planned Islamic Center near Ground-Zero in New York City is not politically motivated and highly controversial would be a massive insult to our sense of reason. If the planners of the project truly want to build bridges between the major religions, I am hard pressed to think of a worse location to choose! On second thought, there is one other place that would be even more divisive – why don’t the planners just go to Jerusalem and try to get approval for their Islamic center somewhere around the Wailing Wall, a key symbol for Jewish suffering? It is rather humourous to contemplate how many nano-seconds the Israeli Knesset would seriously debate this issue before putting the kibosh on it!

    Whether or not the planners decided on a place that would give Islam the maximum exposure is really beside the point here. What, in reality, they and their unwitting supporters are doing is using our main strengths in the U.S. against us – our love for individual freedom, diversity and religious tolerance. It is interesting to note that it is these very same strengths that set us up for the 9/11 catastrophe in the first place. Without the freedom of movement; the freedom to take flying lessons (minus landing instructions) on our very shores; use credit cards to rent automobiles, buy cell phones, rent rooms, buy airline tickets to anywhere and dine out every night, it is hard to imagine the 9/11 terrorists being successful.

    Now, I would be among the first to admit that Islamic terrorists are not the ones planning or supporting this mosque-from-hell. Nevertheless, I am equally convinced that Osama Bin Laden and company are rejoicing and laughing up their collective sleeves at our naivete for even considering this farcical maneuver ostensibly intended to increase religious tolerance.

    I really don’t blame Islamic extremists for supporting (secretly or otherwise) this proposal. After all, any group worthy of being called an enemy have always and will forever attempt to use their adversary’s strengths as well as their weaknesses against them – even we do that, routinely; it’s just part of the fog of war. But, we should never knowingly give aid and comfort to our sworn enemies, especially on the altar of our greatest strengths.

    Islamic Jihadists are our sworn enemy. They plot our demise every day, just as much as they once did for the Soviet Union. Afghanistan was the Soviet Union’s battle field that ended up as their graveyard. Make no mistake, this 10-year struggle did more to destroy the USSR than Ronald Reagan and his Cold War minions ever did. The Afghan war wrecked the economy of the Soviet Union which ultimately resulted in the stupendous implosion in what seemed like a heart-beat 15 years ago. Since we are still fighting and dying in the same place, we are certainly not exempt from the same fate. The Islamic extremists will not rest until the U.S. is soundly defeated in Iraq/Afghanistan and they, of course, would like nothing better than to see our economy collaspe as a result. Let’s all take an oath to not let this happen.
    John W. McAlister

    For a fuller discussion of this issue and other topical ethical issues of our turbulent times, please visit my website and join the discussion:
    Ethical Universe

    • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

      No. No, I will not visit your website–not if the “opinions” you spout there are as egregiously stupid as the one you posted here.

    • James G

      If you’d bothered, like this guy, to actually do any research, you’d discover that you’re an idiot.

      http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/street-level-view-of-ground-zero-mosque.html

    • Custador

      “Sense of Reason”

      Literally translated: “I’m going to be angry and self righteous about something that is in reality entirely innocuous, and will ignore any evidence that I’m being a moron by telling you that it ‘stands to reason’ that I, along with Fox News, am clearly correct and can therefore ignore couter-arguments of proofs of my own stupidity”.

      That sound about right?

      • Kodie

        I would translate “insult to our sense of reason” in that context to “heightened senses of suspicion toward brown people”. Whatever they’re up to, we must put a stop to it, they’re trying to kill us and anyone who ignores me can’t say they weren’t warned. Whenever someone uses the word ‘our’ to describe something like this and combines it with an appeal to “reason,” it should be examined for sense of “our” (me and some other people, or all of us who consider ourselves reasonable). It’s an appeal fallacy. I can’t believe this idiot wants to sell his book hear. Vigilance is one thing, but panic is another. They’re building the thing, ok? Do you have something against the freedom of religious expression? I love the kinds of useless petitions people make to try to stop something… next time, you think twice about how we don’t want your manger on the town hall parcel of land around Christmastime and shut your piehole, and what the 1st amendment means. Freedom of religion, freedom from religious oppression! And freedom of speech to say you’re a fear-mongering bigot with no leg to stand on. Write your silly posts and try to sell your book, spamming your website and book on a website that forbids links to your web page in the body of the post. You idiot.

    • Custador

      Incidentally, I think you need to research the Israel / Arab thing a whole lot better before you comment on it.

    • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

      First, any “political motivation” that might be behind this, is irrelevant. People in the US are entitled to have a wide range of political motivations, and are entitled to act on them. Getting upset about it … and claiming that “certain” political motivations should be abolished … is immature. Yes, there are political points of view out there with which you will inevitably disagree. Live with it. OK?

      Second, that this is “controversial” is not even in question here. Of course it’s controversial, that’s why we’re talking about it, and it’s why all the hosts on Fox News have weighed in on it with their sanctimonious outrage and their fuming bluster. Again, that there is “controversy” here is not the issue at all. That controversy itself doesn’t change what should or should not be done about the Cordoba center.

      Third, I don’t think anyone is even suggesting that “Islamic terrorism” is not a problem. Of course it is. It killed lots of people on September 11, 2001; it also did so before that date, and has done so since. Again, that “Islamic terrorism” exists and is still a problem, is also not at issue here.

      Fourth, I agree Islamic terrorists, especially of al-Qaeda, are a sworn enemy of the U.S., however, they’re also the sworn enemies of many other states and societies. In fact, attacking and/or toppling the U.S. is not even their “goal.” Their goal is something else, and that is the recreation of a pan-Islamic Caliphate to which all Muslims are subject and under which all Muslim states operate. This would require the destruction of all forms of Islam other than their own (i.e. Wahhabist Sunni Islam) and would undermine or destroy the sovereignty of any country which has a Muslim majority. The U.S. and the rest of the western world are, more or less, incidental to their mission. Carrying on sanctimoniously about how these Islamic terrorists want to kill us and “destroy our way of life” is extremely short-sighted, since it ignores their ultimate goal, which is to reshape the Islamic world, not the occidental.

      Fifth, one thing you’re right about is that the Soviets’ conflict in Afghanistan helped lead to the unravelling of that regime — but on that you only happen to be partially right. It’s possible to place too much emphasis on Afghanistan as a cause of the Soviet collapse. There were other, larger and more pervasive problems within the S.U. which also helped lead to its demise. Among these were its infrastructure, which was both thinly stretched (due to its vast physical size) and poorly maintained, as well as the agitation of constituent states that wished to secede, not to mention even more active resistance of Soviet occupation/influence in external states like Poland. Moreover, the Soviets had actually begun to leave Afghanistan in 1988 — a full three years before the S.U.’s demise, so the timeline doesn’t even support the hypothesis that it was Afghanistan and only Afghanistan that destroyed the Soviet regime.

      Lastly, I understand why you are outraged by the proposed Islamic center near the former World Trade Center. I get it. Really. I know why you’re angry. The reasons are obvious. You need not conjure up all sorts of rational-appearing justifications for wanting to be angry about it. The harsh truth, though, is that anger — whatever its basis — is never a good foundation for any kind of public policy. Cooking up rationales for one’s anger also cannot make that anger into a foundation for a good public policy. Mature adults get angry, but then get past that anger and do what they must — or not, whatever the case may be — for more rational reasons. I suggest you and your fellow Fox News fans stop with the sanctimonious outrage, grow up, and move on with your lives. You’ll be much better off. Try it sometime.

      One last thing: Consider that your outrage over the Cordoba center might not be a little hypocritical. You’re saying that one group should not be allowed to do what it wants, because of its religious motivation, but that your own religion, by contrast, happens to be an acceptable motivation for you (and for the government of NYC, in this case). Sorry to break it to you, but that just doesn’t work.

      • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

        PSICop, sounds like you are advocating that all ‘political motivations’ are equal by definition and that people have the right to act on any of them as they see fit. I suppose you also think that all things are relative, right?
        I pretty much agree with your 2nd and 3rd points; being controversial and Islamic terrorism being real are not really the issue here. I just believe that choosing a site so provocative as Ground-Zero is not conducive to religious harmony and is not in tune with the stated goal of building bridges between the major religions.
        For you to state in your 4th point that, “The U.S. and the rest of the western world are, more or less, incidental to their [Islamic extremist's] mission,” seems incredibly naive to me. I really think you have things a bit backwards on this point. Destroying the ‘Great Satan’ appears to be first on their agenda. Pan-Islam would seem to me to be relatively easy if the West was somehow removed from the picture.
        As for the 5th point, I did not say that Afghanistan was the only reason the Soviet Union collapsed; it was just a very large factor that should not be lost on us – the same thing could happen to the U.S. – our economy is way too shaky anyway!
        As for your last point regarding anger management, I totally disagree with never having anger being a legitimate motivator. During WWII we got extremely angry at the Japanese over Pearl Harbor and pretty much stayed that way till the end of the war. We also remained angrily opposed to the Nazi threat to world peace and their wanton aggression. Some things are definitely worth getting and staying angry at, fighting over and yes even dying for!
        As for me being hypocritical over the current issue owing to my opposition to other’s religious freedom of expression while maintaining allegiance to my own, you are way off base. I am as close to being an atheist as probably anyone you know. However, I support religious freedom as much as anyone you know. I still maintain, though, that religious expression should not include labeling all others as infidels, inflaming other’s sense of outrage and pouring gas on a smoldering fire. Speaking of fire, freedom of expression stops way short of being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater.

        Peace be with you brother, John McAlister

        • Custador

          “I just believe that choosing a site so provocative as Ground-Zero is not conducive to religious harmony”

          For the last fracking time….
          IT’S. NOT. AT. GROUND. ZERO. It’s not even within sight of ground zero.
          IT’S. NOT. A. MOSQUE. It’s a comercial building which contains a small mosque for an extremely progressive branch of Islam. You might as well compare Catholics with Baptists.
          IT’S. NOT. NEW. It’s replacing a similar building that is already there and has been for years.

        • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

          I’m not aware that I ever said anything like “all political motivations are equivalent.” What I did say was that “other political motivations exist” and that “mature adults accept that they do.”

          Big difference between the two. Not that I expect you’ll see that. But it’s true.

          As for the Islamic extremists’ motivations, especially those of al-Qaeda, what I said was in no way “naive.” It happens to be true. It runs counter to what most occidental people think, but it remains true. If you wan to call me “naive” for saying so, go right ahead, but you may as well also call the folks at Stratfor — among other agencies/companies — “naive” too.

          Re: Afghanistan and the Soviets, that conflict was not even a “very large factor” in the S.U.’s demise. It may have accelerated its collapse by a couple of years, but it did not “cause” that demise in any way. All the influences that destroyed the S.U. were already in place and already in play by the time the Soviets invaded.

          Re: Anger as a motivation. You can throw in all sorts of historical examples, including Pearl Harbor and the Nazis, but I stand by the principle that anger is not a proper foundation for public policy. Sometimes the “angry” response and the “rational” response are the same, and that happened after Pearl Harbor. Once Japan attacked us as they did, it became rationally clear that war against Japan and the Axis could no longer be avoided. And so we went to war.

          As for your personal motivations: All the “pundits” who’ve screeched and wailed over this DO have religious motivations. When you happen to cite all the same talking points as they do, then I reasonably concluded that YOU have the same motivations. Even if your motives are secular and not religious, though, that doesn’t happen to make you any less hypocritical here: In this case you are supporting a Religious Right position, and speaking up in favor of the R.R.’s religious motivations, and against the religious motivations of Muslims.

          If anything the Islamic extremists you’re caterwauling about, exemplify EXACTLY why we CANNOT allow hyperreligious people in the U.S. to abscond with any portion of public policy. ALL religious extremism …. from ANY religion … is BAD. And it’s ALWAYS bad. In ALL cases. Everywhere. Universally. No exceptions, no caveats. No surrender, no retreat.

          To cave in to Christian hyperbole on this matter, would grant them a “win” here, and cede some public policy to them. As a secular humanist I find that result UNACCEPTABLE. If you are a secular humanist as you claim, then you should, too.

          • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

            I’m a secular Humanist? Geez, it sounds like you’ve been poking around on my website. If so, you should also know that I don’t respond well to people telling me what I should think. You should also know that I do not cave in to Christian hyperbole or anybody else’s either.
            I do agree with you that religious extremism should have no place in formulating our public policy – but, neither should nihilists or anarchists. What I am simply arguing for here is some sanity in dealing with a highly sensitive subject. You also should not support pouring gasoline on a situation that is so potentially explosive. If the planners of this Cordoba Center are allowed to go forward, it doesn’t take much of a seer to predict that it will not be long before it is burned to the ground! I am not advocating this, it’s just a rational prediction.

            • LRA

              “it doesn’t take much of a seer to predict that it will not be long before it is burned to the ground”

              What the hell are you talking about? What is that based on? Have you lived in NYC?

              I lived there almost 4 years and, yes, I was there when 9/11 happened. NYC is an extraordinarily diverse place, and people there are too busy surviving to give two sh*ts about some small cultural center in downtown. Also, if you haven’t lived in NYC then you don’t realize that 2 city blocks is sufficiently far enough away not to count as “neighbors”. You’re also forgetting that NYC is quite blue, politically and that people of diverse religions marry each other all the time there. It is not uncommon for Jews and Roman Catholics to marry each other there.

              So, long story short, the people of NYC could probably care less about this little manufactured drama from right wing nuttery.

            • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

              I have worked and even lived in New York City (for short intervals) several times. Perhaps you have forgotten about the lynching of blacks in the City during the Civil War. New York is not a bastion of liberal culture you seem to think it is. Please do not think that civil unrest can not happen here just because everyone is too busy!

            • LRA

              Dude, That was the Civil War, this is 2010… how do they compare???

              No, people are not going to rise up into civil unrest because of some small cultural center. Seriously, there are so many centers of this type all over the city, nobody cares. BTW, my best girlfriend in NYC is Muslim, and we experienced 9/11 together. She is a Westernized, progressive Muslim and no one thought of her any differently because of what some kooks did.

              Fundamentalism is the problem. Period.

            • Baconsbud

              Wow doesn’t that statement that blacks were lynched during the Civil War as your example say something pretty good about NYC? Yeah there is always a possibility that someone will be stupid but to deny them the right to build because of that is just another way to push hate for others.

            • Sunny Day

              “What I am simply arguing for here is some sanity in dealing with a highly sensitive subject.”

              We’ve done all the heavy lifting for you. All you are doing is trying to spread fear and hate..

            • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

              Actually you are the one who said you were a secular humanist. Or at least you tried to imply it (“I am as close to being an atheist as probably anyone you know”). I’m not convinced you’re areligious, mostly because your rhetoric parrots the R.R. I think your claim to being “close to an atheist” is merely a pose.

              You accept as axiomatic that the people behind the Cordoba center are “nihilists or anarchists.” I have yet to see evidence they’re either. They might be cranks trying to get a rise out of people — or they might not. No one has been able to show it.

              As for the center being a “sensitive subject” and potentially “explosive,” it’s only those things because of the hyperreligious outrage expressed by the Religious Right. I don’t deny that — perhaps — it was intended to provoke this kind of response. But the fact is that provocation only works when the target of it gives into it and responds as desired. Responding differently … in this case without any of the hyperreligious outrage … would deny them this desired response.

              Really the question here is NOT what motivates the people behind the Cordoba center. I neither know nor care what they are. Nor should any mature adult care about either. What they should care about it how mature they wish to be about how they respond. My response is, if they want to build this thing; if they have the money to do it; if they go about it legally, getting all the proper permissions; then let them build it. An Islamic cultural center (not a “mosque”) near (not “at,” or “on top of”) the WTC site, no more bothers me than would an evangelical megachurch opening up next door to my house.

              That is … I wouldn’t be happy about it, but I wouldn’t be screeching and wailing and throwing tantrums about it, and I wouldn’t cook up all manner of rationales for why my annoyance with such a project means it CANNOT be built. And I certainly wouldn’t LIE to people about it.

              That, I think, is the mature response.

              The R.R., on the other hand, is made up of a bunch of fanatic, infantile little pricks. So they aren’t capable of a mature response. They wouldn’t know what “maturity” is if it smashed them in the face and knocked them out. As for why you — a claimed “near atheist” — would propagate the R.R.’s juvenile antics … well … that isn’t my problem. It’s yours. You are what you associate with.

        • Michael

          I would like to quickly add that some Japanese Americans might not remember our anti-Japanese anger in WWII as such a good thing after all. I’m not sure you thought through this example.

  • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

    To: Skippy, James G and Custador, I can always tell when I’m winning an argument when my opponent(s) starts flinging invectives around indiscriminately and turning the debate into a shouting match! Get a grip guys and start arguing about the facts and leave personalities out of it. John W. McAlister. And, by the way, Skippy, you’re not welcome on my website if your lame comment is any indication of your contribution to the discussion.
    Ethical Universe

    • Custador

      Firstly: If you run a website you might want to learn how to nest comments properly.

      Secondly: Since your entire motivation is based on thoughtlessly whipping up hysteria about something which you are completely in the wrong, don’t be shocked when you get called on your bull.

      This isn’t a “debate” – you don’t have the wit to “debate”. You’ve come and expressed an extremely Islamophobic diatribe without any evidence to back it up, based entirely on preconceptions and the lies spewed by talk radio and Fox News, and as soon as that got pointed out to you, you’ve done the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “Lalalala I’m not listening lalalala” while simultaneously claiming some kind of victory.

      Let me break this down real quick: Nobody tried to debate you. We used your own words to ridicule you, because they are ridiculous and you are an idiot. That does not mean you won. It means a bunch of people who are smarter than you are mocked you and you’re so stupid you didn’t even spot it.

      By the way, for information, I’m a self-confessed Islamophobe – and you’re still a neocon jackass.

      • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

        Custador, do you always have this much trouble staying on point? If I thought you were worth the effort, I would attempt a rebuttal of your personal assault, but, since I have zero respect for your opinion, I’ll simply sign off now. Say good night Custador.

        • Custador

          Kkkkrrrrrrrrrrrrrssssshhhhhhhh “Hello Kettle, hello Kettle, this is pot, over,” Kkkkrrrrrssssshhhh “You are black. Repeat, you are black, over and out”.

        • LRA

          John-

          You should check out who the Cordoba Initiative actually is:

          http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/about-ci

          Fundamentalist Muslims would totally hate this because it’s about fostering better relations between Muslims and the West. The terrorists don’t want Muslims to like the West, yet, that is what the Cordoba Initiative seems to want.

          No need to rail against an organization that promotes tolerance.

    • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

      Honey, I wouldn’t waste the energy it would take to click on the link to your site, you xenophobic imbecile.

      • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

        Well, ‘Honey’ if you won’t come to my website, I suppose it too much to hope for that you will buy my book! So, I don’t have the energy or inclination to waste much time on you. But, I will say, okay it’s a cultural center not a mosque strictly speaking. It’s near Ground-Zero not actual at it. And as I said earlier it is not being sponsored by Islamic extremists. So what? It is still socially devisive and that is the last thing we need in this polarized country of ours!

        • Elemenope

          It is still socially divisive and that is the last thing we need in this polarized country of ours!

          How does that begin to make sense? People divide over issues because, for whatever reason, those issues are important to them. If we have any sort of shared vales as a society (and I’d argue we certainly have a few, enshrined in law and elsewhere), it behooves us to work through our disagreements with those values in mind, rather than ignore them and hope they go away or worse, tell people that they shouldn’t do something merely because it draws attention to a social conflict that some would rather pretend doesn’t exist.

          If, as occasionally does happen, a conflict reveals that a group really doesn’t actually hold one of the presumably commonly held values (such as this case reveals that certain segments of conservatism do not hold general religious freedom as a core value), this is also important to know and suss out, either to reexamine more closely those presumed values, or shore them up by excoriating those who do not hold them.

          Nothing is gained by just avoiding controversy and division. Consensus enforced through these means leads nowhere good.

          • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

            Well, Elemenope, we are divided on just about every issue imaginable. In fact, that is the defining reality of our time. This leads to gridlock which is basically what we see in Washington today, but it’s just a reflection of society. Even the notion of contention being socially healthy is now being contested. This leads me to ask, how productive is our disagreement over the right to disagree? We can’t even agree on that I’ll bet!

            • Elemenope

              Even the notion of contention being socially healthy is now being contested. This leads me to ask, how productive is our disagreement over the right to disagree? We can’t even agree on that I’ll bet!

              You’re overthinking it.

              Society is made up of many individuals.
              Those individuals often disagree about matters important to them.

              You can either:

              1.) Encourage people to never do anything that will cause controversy

              or

              2.) Have the controversy

              Either way, the underlying disagreement still exists, and people will still act upon it. But with only one is it at all possible to have a public dialogue follow. The other way has an additional danger of suppressing the publicity of an argument until it becomes *too severe to be productively discussed*. Yeah, sometimes the dialogue can turn strident; nobody said this “society” thing would be easy. But it is in every way better than the method you are advocating; I cannot fathom how a society which is bitterly divided but in which everyone pretends to agree could be thought of as at all healthy.

            • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

              I am definitely not advocating the cessation of dissent. It just troubles me when people forget that we are at war with a very determined enemy; and this is a war we may very well lose.

            • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

              Let’s win the war before we try to win the peace!

            • Custador

              It troubles me when idiots like you think one Muslim = all Muslims and treat everybody with brown skin as if they’re the enemy. Why is there a war, John? Even if you accept the most possitively revisionist history going, it still boils down to this: The USA negatively interfered for decades in the Middle East and they suffered a major terrorist attack in consequence. Rather than learn their lesson, they started one land war on a country which is famously impossible to subdue and one on a country which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks – which was, in fact, just as depsised by the attackers as the USA was.

            • Elemenope

              this is a war we may very well lose.

              I hear this a lot, but generally it is not followed with any kind of detail. In what possible world does militant Islam *prevail* over the U.S. (much less the Western World)? How exactly would they go about winning? What would a victory look like?

              For that matter, what would a victory on our part consist of?

            • Kodie

              Straighten out your story: we might lose the war because some muslims are building a mosque in lower Manhattan, or some innocent muslims might get killed by overzealous xenophobes because they dared to build a mosque in lower Manhattan? That would make the xenophobes wrong in over-reacting to a house of worship much like their own houses of worship, wouldn’t it? Why would you encourage that by making it out to be a big deal? It seems you have (at least) two possible effects of this mosque, neither seeming likely. There are mosques all over the country, why is this one particularly dangerous? Those buildings are already demolished and several thousand people. What do you think they’re going to do with this mosque so close to a site that they couldn’t do several more blocks or miles or states away that makes this such a problem for you? I do think Christians and other bigots have a lot of nerve protesting in the United States against the freedom of religion to build whatever building they like anywhere they can purchase land, and suspect them to be up to no good. Why would they be up to no good in a public place of their god? And why would they need a mosque to organize against the US? I mean, what do you really think they’re going to do here? Manhattan isn’t really too big, what’s wrong with an accessible mosque to this neighborhood so the muslims there don’t have to travel uptown? I’m glad it makes you uncomfortable enough to run around like a chicken posting warnings both that muslims are “winning the war” we have against them (we don’t), and that maybe some idiots who listen to the same stuff you listen to may take to violence against them and their new building. You might take some responsibility for that, and simmer down those type of people, what is wrong with them? I repeat, I am so glad this makes you uncomfortable! That’s a positive in my book. I think the muslims who use this new building will have adequate security, are you going to be suspicious that they have too much security, that they anticipate bad feelings because they intended them? You’re a moron, john W mcalister.

    • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

      Oh, and by the way, respond to these facts:

      1. It is NOT a mosque. It is a cultural center.
      2. It is not at “Ground Zero.” It is not within sight of Ground Zero
      3. The people who are responsible for this center are not–I repeat, not–Islamic fundamentalists and are not of the same ilk as those who were responsible for 9/11; therefore, your equivalence is false.

      If you have anything in the way of proof to support your xenophobic claims, present it. Otherwise, have a nice cup of STFU.

      • Custador

        I’ve been waiting for him to address these points for hours. He won’t. Reality interferes too heavily with his delusion.

        • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

          Yeah, I notice he never bothered to address the points you brought up earlier–I thought I’d reiterate them and see what Mr. U! S! A! had to say.

          • Custador

            I’m guessing he said “USA! USA! Harley frickin’ Davidson! USA!”

    • James G

      I’m not really bothering to argue the issues with you, as everyone else has already done that much better than I could. I’ll just pop in here and there and insult you because it amuses me. I learnt a while ago not to bother with complete cocks like you, who turn up with the sole intention of being massive knob jockeys towards other people. I know that you’re not here to have a proper argument, but just get on people’s nerves, or failing that, you’re a sad, deluded prick with so little intelligence that you wouldn’t be able to see sense even if it was handed to you on a silver platter.

  • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

    Well, Custador, I see that you have added treason to your resume! You are a bigger fool than I originally thought. Our country is at war which means that our troops are being killed; and you call me an idiot?

    • Elemenope

      Custador is not from the US.

      Nice job on the assumptions, there, though.

      Even if he were, it is in no way treasonous to question:

      1. the necessity of a war
      2. the reasons for a war
      3. the wisdom in actually engaging in a war
      4. whether a war is worth its costs in lives, money, and prestige

      In fact, all of these questions are important to address and keep revisiting before and during a war, since it is such an important and costly undertaking. It is also not treasonous to point out that the answers to those questions may not be pleasant or cast one’s country in the most positive light.

      And given that Custador is not an American but is nonetheless affected by the decisions of Americans, he has every right to throw in his two cents on our decisions to wage and perpetuate a war.

      • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

        If Custador is not an American, he has no rights in this country! So I suggest he shut the f*** up! And furthermore, all of your questions are completely valid until war is declared. Once that happens, you are obligated to support the war effort (and our troops, of course), whether or not you agree with its principles! Unless you are not an American either?

        • Kodie

          Obligated to support the war effort? What planet are you from? Can you even claim to read for comprehension, much less have a “sense of reason” we ought not ignore at our own peril? You’re ridiculous.

          • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

            Kodie, you might find it ridiculous to support your country, but, I do not. Once the threat of Islamic extremism has been vanquished, perhaps we could have a polite conversation, but not before.

            • Elemenope

              Once the threat of Islamic extremism has been vanquished

              You never answered my question on that, by the way. In what way is Islamic extremism a “threat”? It certainly isn’t an existential threat; heck, it isn’t even a major threat. The *best* they muster is an attack that destroyed two and a half buildings, and it was all downhill for them after that.

              How do you see them mustering anything less pathetic than that?

            • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

              Oh, Elemenope, don’t you see? Islamic extremism is a threat to Christian extremism!

            • Kodie

              @Johnmmcalister — I do support my country by using my 1st amendment rights. I think it’s important to use them or have them wither away. The US was built on principles that have nothing to do with supporting the decision-makers and everything to do with deciding whether the decision-makers are right or not. Soldiers are people like you and me, but they make a sacrifice, and I think you are belittling that sacrifice by agreeing to have them die for an unjust cause rather than speak up and say that the cause is unjust. You let your government decide for you whether the cause is just enough. That’s almost religious! If they say it’s just, you go with it out of some obligation rather than looking into your own gut and availing yourself of your rights to speak that it may be unjust.

              If I am reading you right, you say that it is a just cause regardless of government, however. I am pretty sure you’d say something if you disagreed, as per your right to do so. You are just making this into a “treason” issue because you happen to agree with the cause. I mean, what could be in your book if you didn’t have a lot of words to sell on this particular issue? You are using your right to free speech to write a book, to alarm people about the Islam that’s threatening us or something. I didn’t click on your website, I am just going by the garbage you posted here so far.

        • Elemenope

          If Custador is not an American, he has no rights in this country!

          That’s not even literally true, never mind true in the way you mean it.

          So I suggest he shut the f*** up!

          Simmer down.

          And furthermore, all of your questions are completely valid until war is declared. Once that happens, you are obligated to support the war effort (and our troops, of course), whether or not you agree with its principles!

          Why? What if the war aims shift during the war such that the reasons given at the beginning are no longer applicable; it isn’t reasonable to talk about that shift in goals and ask whether that shift affects the legitimacy of the war? What if tactics change severely, and as a result the projected costs in lives and/or money go way up; isn’t it reasonable to talk about how those changes bear on whether a war should be continued? (BTW, the exclamation points don’t make your argument weightier.)

          Unless you are not an American either?

          I am quite American, quite patriotic, and quite conservative. Entailed in *all* of those things is understanding how important dissent is to a functioning society, in all situations and contexts. There is no merit whatsoever to the idea that dissent is unpatriotic in wartime. Dissent will not kill one soldier, nor aid one enemy. It is merely the continuation of discussion vital to the health of a country undertaking a serious task. Most soldiers I know envision their role as defending values like the right to dissent; they would be dismayed in the extreme to hear someone argue that dissent is treason in any context.

          • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

            Elemenope, if you feel this strongly you should run for congress. Dissent in war time does undermine public support for the war, despite of what you say. To hear you people, an outsider would have to conclude that we are at war with a determined enemy and ourselves at the same time. With this kind of ‘support,’ I can’t see how win this thing.

            • Elemenope

              Dissent in war time does undermine public support for the war, despite of what you say.

              Yeah, it does. That’s the point. It’s an argument for why a war should *stop*. If it is a convincing argument, and it convinces enough people, and those people convince their elected leaders (or replace them), the war *stops*. If it is not a persuasive argument, the war keeps going. That’s the point of democracy: we decide together what is being done in our name, for how long, to what extent, and when it should end.

              What it doesn’t do is place any soldier in danger, or aid the enemy (which are the markers of actual treason, the word you blithely abused earlier).

              Let me ask you something. If you were a soldier, how would you have confidence that you were really fighting for truth, justice, and the American way unless you knew that people were vigorously debating the reasons to send you in harm’s way? If one side of the argument is all that ever gets aired, then there is nothing for a soldier to depend on to assure that what he or she is doing is really the will of the American people.

            • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

              It is not the soldier’s duty to wonder about these imponderable things. We do not send them into battle debating the issues. If this had been the case, the Civil War would have never have been fought or the Korean war or Viet Nam, for that matter. All wars are not just, even for home and country, but, when we do go to war, our citizens must support it or else our troops die in vain.

            • Kodie

              Your outlook on things is awfully simplistic. I wonder what you think you could fill a book with, could have done better with a pamphlet.

            • Elemenope

              If it is a war contrary to our values, our interests, or good sense, then the soldiers will have died in vain even if there is not one peep of opposition. Something that is wrong is still wrong even if nobody points it out.

              And while it is not a part of a soldier’s *duty* to ponder these (quite ponderable) things, and it gives one no right to, say, be insubordinate or to ignore legally-issued orders, it is still their purview as human beings to seek assurance that what they are engaged in is a worthy cause. Since their country is asking them to kill and maim, I think it wise to send them off armed with the best possible assurance that what they are doing is, in fact, right. There is this intangible little thing called morale, which tends to crater when soldiers don’t believe in their cause. You seem to be arguing that we should just suppress dissent and lie to them and hope they don’t notice when something is fishy with a war in order to keep morale up. That strikes me as disgustingly disrespectful.

            • Custador

              “It is not the soldier’s duty to wonder about these imponderable things.”

              1) Nobody is asking “the” soldier to do any such thing.
              2) They are not “imponderable” to anybody capable of abstract conceptual thought.
              3) You live in a DEMOCRACY, therefore it is entirely your responsibility as a voter to object if the people that you elected are doing things which you find objectionable.
              4) Unthinking patriotism is the last refuge of the hopeless ignoramus who can’t back up his point of view and is too stupid to change it when proved wrong. That would be you.

            • Sunny Day

              WOW. No wonder you want to stifle dissent. It seems all you can bring to the discussion is emotionally charged rhetoric which disintegrates at the slightest touch.

            • Nox

              Something you are sort of missing here johnmcalister.

              No one ever asked me if I wanted to invade Iraq or Afghanistan declare a “war on terror”. To expect people to feel some sense of obligation to stay the course when they have opposed the course from the beginning is ridiculous. Not only are these wars by nature “in vain” since they are based on false premises, but they were declared unilaterally by the most “treason”ous president we’ve ever had. To still blindly follow George Bush’s lies now that it is 2010 and we all know he was lying, is a lot more harmful than not “supporting” our troops, most of whom would probably prefer that you “support” them by ending the war so they don’t have to be there anymore. I am in regular contact with numerous soldiers in Iraq and the only support they want from us is to demand this war be over so they can come home.

              I know you won’t actually understand any of this (you actually still think the Vietnam War was worth fighting?). You can try to argue if you want, but you will simply convince anyone reading your words that you have not put much thought into them.And one more little thing to think about which may not seem important but which I assure you is:

              Have you ever heard any clearly defined victory condition for any of our current wars?

        • Custador

          John McAlister…. You’re a retard. An actual intelectual midget. You seriously think that because I don’t live in the Divided Hegemony of America, I should ignore the incredible array of negative effects which its actions have on MY country and MY life?

          How about this: How about you pull your head out of your arse, stop parotting tea-party garbage about how we all owe the USA loyalty unto death (oh, but only if a good, down-home, white Republican is in the White House) and actually try THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

          • yahweh

            “John McAlister…. You’re a retard”…….I’ll second that.

            “try THINKING FOR YOURSELF”……..I think that is impossible. Right now he is watching fox news for his next “debate” tactic. Just yell louder than the other guy then proclaim victory. That usually works.

          • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

            Well Custador, Kodie, Skippy, Bambi and TwinkleToes and the rest, after sleeping on it, let’s get a new start. As in any war, truth is the first victim. So, let me try to clear the air a bit. My position is basically as follows:
            I am opposed to the Cordoba Center because it is so decisive. Let’s look at a parallel: What if a group of peace loving, well meaning group of Japanese Americans wanted to rehabilitate their image (and culture) by proposing a Japanese Cultural Center (or Shinto Shrine) in or around Pearl Harbor (close to where the USS Arizona and its crew rests, under water). Would you think that was in good taste? Or would you maybe think they should pick a different site?

            The second point I want to reiterate has to do with dissent. I did not tell everyone of you to shut up – only the foreign National, Custador (could he be an al-qaeda operative?). But seriously, all this anti war rhetoric could be construed as sedition (treason was a little harsh). You all should thank your lucky stars that you live in the U.S. In other places such language could get you shot on sight. This does not mean that dissent is unAmerican; we need to hear this point of view along with the other less strident ones. But, the proper way to express your dissent is to work to elect representatives more in tune with your beliefs – not spew your sedition all over the internet. John W. McAlister
            Ethical Universe

            • Elemenope

              Well Custador, Kodie, Skippy, Bambi and TwinkleToes and the rest

              Does that make me TwinkleToes?

              Let’s look at a parallel: What if a group of peace loving, well meaning group of Japanese Americans wanted to rehabilitate their image (and culture) by proposing a Japanese Cultural Center (or Shinto Shrine) in or around Pearl Harbor (close to where the USS Arizona and its crew rests, under water).

              They did. It’s there right now.

              You were saying?

            • Kodie

              The proper way? Excuse me? You are welcome to spew your dislike of a house of worship being built at a particular site, sell your website and your book to people who might be interested in your cause, but UH-HUH, no one is allowed to speak up against your idiotic ramblings?

              In general, if people don’t talk about what’s going on, others might not find out what is at issue and let their representatives know it’s important. One person/one vote is not enough! You have to rally, how the EFF do you propose this, we just silence ourselves and let you get all the support you like on your side? Are you insane? Where did you get these lunatic ideas that people aren’t allowed to “spew” I mean discuss topical topics and figure out how we feel about them, and get the buzz going? You just have some balls, sir, sommmmme goddamned balls to even suggest the internet is not the place to discuss issues. Of course, it’s a good place for you to sell your book and videos of cats being weird. Let’s not use it to communicate and organize and unite discussions and ideas! What were we thinking? We were thinking you’re kind of an asshoIe.

            • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

              Topical topics? I’m not sure what that means. God bless the internet, it’s the only place a one-way thinker like you can get any word out or any buzz for that matter – I challenge you to publish your point of view anywhere else.

            • Elemenope

              Topical topics may be redundant, but it’s pretty clear what it means. “One-way thinker”, on the other hand, is just personal made-up jargon.

            • Kodie

              I have an opinion on the topic, but you have turned this into a huge misunderstanding of the 1st amendment and what rights you are granted. It is the Muslims’ right to express their freedom of religion, just like any other church or house of worship might want to build where they can get land or already have land. It is even your right to be concerned that this is not the right place for them to make a mosque. You’ve severely misunderstood or simply like to suspect them because they are brown and some of the more fundamental ones killed a lot of people in a city that you don’t even live in. I can understand being sentimental over this, or read too much symbolism into it, either because you were close to the city or any of the victims or just like to think this is an issue we ought to have solidarity on; we are all (some of us) Americans and we were attacked, we should all feel the same way about that and oppose this mosque.. However, this is not true. We were attacked, but we are under no obligation to feel the same way about it, or what Muslims want to do building a house of worship right down the road.

              Clearly, you have misunderstood what rights we have to oppose your addled thoughts. We disagree, and that’s ok. I don’t force you to agree, but it would be nice if you acknowledged some of the facts you would rather ignore before you make your final decision. Like many people, you draw your favorite conclusion and then find moving tracts of flowery language to support it, and attract people to agree with you. That is everyone’s right. I don’t think anyone said for you to shut up, just that you are stupid. You are not stupid to oppose this mosque, but you are stupid to ignore reality, or fail to address people who point out to you where you missed some vital details, or choose to ignore them.

              Mostly I don’t care about the mosque anymore. It is simply a house of worship like you would like your church anywhere you want. I don’t think you’d be any more sensitive or careful if it was something you already concluded was “right.” I think it’s great that it makes you uncomfortable in a panicky way, and that it’s going ahead and there’s nothing you can really do to stop it. My take on this topic has nothing really to do with the mosque anymore, and mostly to do with your unAmerican interpretation of the 1st amendment. You are trying to control speech and free expression of religious beliefs. Any argument you can think of cannot limit either of these things; your argument against the mosque is based on false assertions and beliefs, while your idea of who can say what, when and where is bordering on offensive. You can say “treason” or “sedition” as much as you like, but strong language is not strong enough to stifle the free speech of dissent, especially since you don’t seem to respect the meanings of either of those words more than you just like flinging them around. It’s not nicer or more intelligent to use those words carelessly as it is to call someone a donkey’s pile of poo, or what an a-hole that john mcalister is! So your argument sunk to a very low level pretty much right away. At least we are using accurate words to call you, based on your attitude and opinions. You seem to take your patriotism very seriously, and yet undermine it at the same time.

              I think in a democracy, ideally, the government looks to popular opinion, and the most efficient way to increase the popularity of opinions is the internet, not selling books where you’re not supposed to spam about your books or post your website in the body of your post! I do try to think the US government has our best interests and rights in mind, when they go to war, they must think it’s a just cause. If we just go along, a lot of people can die in vain. If we are informed and support the effort, then they are fighting and dying for a good cause. If we are informed and do not support the effort, hopefully they listen — the government should not be in favor of continuing an unjust cause, and it’s up to the constituents to raise awareness everywhere they can, to protest, to campaign for writing to legislators, and to increase voter turnout. How do you dare try to say the internet is not a valid communication device for dissent, only for support? The government, as far as I know, supports the mosque, however. I think you know if you oppose the thing, you’re seditious, right? You want to undermine something ordinary and uncomplicated because you are “sensitive”. You want to get the word out to oppose it for some reason, and it’s ok that you use the internet. Maybe you just want money and sell more books if you get to promote it uncontested, and the fewer people who call you out as a racist or a xenophobe, the more sales you might make. That’s what makes me sick about people like you. Good, sell some books, but don’t expect people to be quiet because you have some agenda to press. We’re letting you expose your moronic ideals, the least you can do, Mr. Patriotic, is have the courtesy to let others speak as well. It’s not even courtesy, it’s decency, and “proper” observation of our U.S. Constitution that you tried to pee on. You’re a dlck for trying to get away with that, and I don’t mind saying that on the internet for all to read.

            • Sunny Day

              He’s one of those Gutless Yellow Turds that routinely goes through the comments on his site and deletes any comments with the slightest hints of disagreement. One wonders, if he hasn’t already, why he doesn’t go whole hog and just engage in total sock-puppetry.

            • Elemenope

              What if a group of peace loving, well meaning group of Japanese Americans wanted to rehabilitate their image (and culture) by proposing a Japanese Cultural Center (or Shinto Shrine) in or around Pearl Harbor…

              Gee, I wonder what would happen. Oh, wait, it DID happen!

            • Elemenope

              There is a Shinto Shrine five miles to Pearl Harbor, on the highway from the harbor to Honolulu. It’s been there for decades.

            • Ty

              A better question:

              Should the Freemasons be blocked from building Masonic Lodges near Nagasaki or Hiroshima? I mean, a Mason dropped nukes on them.

            • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

              Oh! I didn’t know that. Our Hawaii bothers are more more liberal than I am then.

            • Elemenope

              Or perhaps simply less sensitive to trivial, symbolic issues and more concerned with core values, like freedom of religion (being as it is written right there in the Constitution, and all).

              I had a link posted to an interesting article about the history of the shrine, but the filter didn’t like it, so you will probably see it later.

            • Ty

              “not spew your sedition all over the internet. John W. McAlister”

              That was one of the stupider things I’ve read today. Thanks!

            • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

              No, the Freemasons should not be allowed to build anything near Nagasaki or Hiroshima?

            • wintermute

              You all should thank your lucky stars that you live in the U.S. In other places such language could get you shot on sight.

              And you think America should go the same way, right? Criticising the government should be considered a serious crime?

              Not to mention the fact that the person you actually called out lives in a different country where vigorous disagreement with the government is encouraged…

            • Ty

              Yeah, definitely some police state envy going on there.

            • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

              I just think he should go back there.

            • wintermute

              Go back where? To the country he currently lives in? How would that work?

              Or do you think that the Internet is only accessible from America?

            • Elemenope

              Mr. McAlister, are you really of the opinion that nobody outside the US can have a relevant opinion about what the US does?

            • Sunny Day

              “I just think he should go back there.”

              Wow, this Tea-Brained scumbag just keeps getting dumber and dumber. Once you think hes hit rock bottom he just gets out the blasting caps and starts setting the explosives.

              Gramps maybe you should google the internet or something.

            • Elemenope

              Apropos of nothing, but the cover art for your book is some of the damn funniest stuff I’ve ever seen.

            • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

              Hey, thanks for visiting the site. I hope you left an appropriately caustic comment!

            • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

              Which is presumably why you kept putting the link to your website in your posts–you posted this drivel along with your posts to perhaps drive up traffic to your own site? And of course, “an appropriately caustic comment” would only help solidify your own self image as a freedom lovin’ patriotic patriot of patriotism, wouldn’t it? Right. Piss off, you poncy tosser.

            • Ty

              The test you can take is pretty hilarious, too. The section on how a BS in EE and working at IBM makes you an expert on human morality is one of the funnier self justifications I’ve read. You can almost see him jumping up and down yelling, “No really! I’m smart!!!”

              If you had any real insights, you wouldn’t have to self publish, you know.

            • Sunny Day

              “Hey, thanks for visiting the site. I hope you left an appropriately caustic comment!”

              LOL. I’ve seen your site too. Apparently all you are allowed to do is praise the miserable waste of time you call a book. Even an innocuous observation like the one I left, “Hmm, universal praise and not one dissenting opinion. Very interesting.”, gets rejected. You cowardly piss-ant. No wonder you’re so eager to stifle contention if you’re assuming the rest of the world is just as gutless.

            • Michael

              I think it’s also telling that his book currently has four Smashwords reviews, three of which are five stars with similar language from users with no other reviews or information whatsoever. The fourth is four stars and appears to be from a real person, but that person has no other reviews and has never published a book (despite being an author for 22 years).

              I also noticed “Theory of Relativity” among the keywords which I thought was hilarious. You do realize that Einstein wrote about motion, not morality, right?

              Then you call it “New Age Philosophy,” which might be accurate, but you apparently only draw inspiration from Fromm, Freud, and Aristotle. Actually, to be honest, it sounds like your book is based exclusively on Fromm and your own various opinions. So maybe it could be “Old Age Philosophy.”

              I can understand why Escape from Freedom could be your cup of tea, though.

            • coffeejedi

              “But, the proper way to express your dissent is to work to elect representatives more in tune with your beliefs – not spew your sedition all over the internet.”
              /headdesk

              The stupid! It buuuuurns!!!!!!

            • Sunny Day

              “Would you think that was in good taste?”

              Yes.

              “But seriously, all this anti war rhetoric could be construed as sedition”

              If Fear didn’t work the first time, try Fear again.

              “You all should thank your lucky stars that you live in the U.S. In other places such language could get you shot on sight.”

              Still more Fear and the moronic idea that we should become like our “enemies” to defeat them.

              “But, the proper way to express your dissent is to work to elect representatives more in tune with your beliefs – not spew your sedition all over the internet.”

              The best way to use our rights is to not use them at all? We shouldn’t share our ideas with one another because we should instead address them to our elected representatives. Democracy how does it work on your planet.

            • Ty

              Sedition. Really.

              He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

            • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

              Sedition: Ur doin’ it rong! Since reason doesn’t work with our self-published Patriot of Patriotic Patriotism, I’m just gonna go with outright mockery.

            • Bill

              “But, the proper way to express your dissent is to work to elect representatives more in tune with your beliefs – not spew your sedition all over the internet.””

              The stupidity of this is amazing. He thinks speaking out against the war is “sedition,” and as such believes people shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Yet says that we should oppose the war by voting for politicians who oppose it.

              How exactly would we know that these hypothetical politicians oppose the war? If speaking out against the war is impermissible – indeed rises to the level of being a crime – are we to just read their minds?

        • wintermute

          [A]ll of your questions are completely valid until war is declared. Once that happens, you are obligated to support the war effort (and our troops, of course), whether or not you agree with its principles!

          So, if Congress declared war on Israel (for example), you’d be happy to support such a war, even if you disagreed with it?If you’d lived in 1940′s Germany, you’d have happily supported your nation’s invasion of Poland? Or does this “no criticising the war” rule only apply to wars you personally like?

  • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

    (Note, there was no “reply” link so this comment is posted at the “root” even though it shouldn’t have been.)

    Re: [johnmcalister] All wars are not just, even for home and country, but, when we do go to war, our citizens must support it or else our troops die in vain.

    So you’re saying even a successfully-fought and “just” war MUST have been won “in vain,” so long as there was even one dissenting citizen on the victorious side? Are you SURE you really want to go with that? I’d say the “vanity” — or absence of it — of a successful war has everything to do with its goals and its outcome, and nothing to do with the existence of any dissent.

    Believe it or not, there WERE dissenters to World War II, in various countries which were involved (among both the Axis and Allied powers). By your stated reasoning, the existence of WWII dissenters automatically makes the Allies’ victory “in vain.” I’m not sure I’d go that far, but hey, you’re the “near atheist” who’s the expert on “ethics,” so I’ll let you decide if that’s really true. What I think is that the nature of the war itself gave its outcome the meaning it has. The existence of dissent anywhere among the Allied powers can never take that away.

    • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

      No, I,m not saying any such thing. I’m simply saying that dissenters do not help the war effort and taking their opposition to an extreme, they become traitors.

      • Kodie

        We cherish the freedom of speech to be able to say things we otherwise might be punished for saying, such as “I don’t support this war” that my government has sent men to kill or be killed, to see things no one should see or have things done to them no one should have done to them, to be changed forever, for a cause I do not believe is worthy. You are saying that we shouldn’t use that option! Who is the traitor here?

        • Kodie

          I need to add here — human beings go off to fight wars. We don’t just set up some machine against someone else’s machine and see who wins. I think it’s more humanitarian to count the lives of soldiers for something, for it to matter or protest what wastefulness of human life than it is to join in some nationalistic unity against some other army from a country whose policy we have waged a physical war with. They’re people, for chrissake. To say that once they’re at war, we have an obligation to support the war is to ignore that people are spending their lives for us. You can say, naw, I’m good, don’t bother. That’s in favor of bringing them home, and keeping them from dying in vain, or you can support the war for unity’s sake, and let them die in vain. Maybe it’s not the individual soldiers’ jobs to care what they are fighting for, but that’s messed up that we should agree to let them die if the government sends them over bringing them home because the war is wrong. You’re so stupid and I’m sick to my stomach over the things you write.

          • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

            I need to add here — human beings go off to fight wars. We don’t just set up some machine against someone else’s machine and see who wins.

            Please, please, please tell me you had that Star Trek episode “A Taste Of Armageddon” in mind when you wrote that. If you did, I will <3 you forever.

            Oh, and thank you for fighting the good fight against this latest moronic imbecile.

            • Kodie

              Sorry Skippy, I have seen maybe 1.5 episodes of Star Trek ever and I think they were new generation with the levar burton and the banana clip on his eyes, and not since the 90s, very early 90s when I was in college and had a boyfriend who sort of made me watch it.

              Also, you’re welcome. I am catching up on his posts. I really dislike extreme people who argue everything’s an emergency, what to do about it, and especially how he’s angling that censorship is ok. Freedom of speech isn’t what some blogger doesn’t like in his comment page, it’s all about what about the government that’s not sitting right, including pointless wars, especially because lives are at stake, apparently people whose job it is NOT to care what they are fighting for. They are pawns, it really is our job to care on their behalf if they are fighting a just cause or not — life, for crying out loud, do you want to die? No. Do you think it’s ok for others to die for something you would not choose to die for yourself? Is this your freedom? What do you do to thank people who fight for your freedom — let them die or pay attention to what the cause they are dying for is, decide if it is just or not. What is patriotism, lockstep agreement with Congress or using the freedom being fought for to speak in lieu of others who are voiceless. Man, this prick really annoys me. Sorry I didn’t watch enough Star Trek to be loved forever, though. I’m like, the only non-nerd on the whole internet and also a female.

            • Siberia

              Actually, while I do love sci-fi and science and I am quite nerdy (and female), I never did watch Star Trek, either, nor ever seen what the fuss is all about. So, you’re not alone, Kodie :)

            • Elemenope

              Star Trek (the original show) is mostly now too painful to watch, being as hammy and melodramatic as humanly possible. It is of interest historically along with the Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits (both of whom were superior quality-wise) for the establishment of sci-fi as a viable genre on TV.

              If one were to get into Trek now, I’d recommend starting with Deep Space Nine. It’s still watchable, much more in line with modern sci-fi conventions, and all around the best of the series (IMO).

            • Daniel Florien

              Yep DS9 is my favorite too. Still can be cheesy, but not as cheesy as the others. Though some TNG episodes are pretty good… “the inner light” comes to mind.

            • Siberia

              I loved the Outer Limits. As well as, of course, Stargate.

            • Elemenope

              For Next Gen:

              The Q episodes (which conveniently cover the series pilot & finale, as well as the introduction of the Borg, and some of the more important character notes for Picard, Data, and Riker) are uniformly good-to-excellent.

              The incomparable Best of Both Worlds.

              Though most of season one was execrable, the mini arc about the nefarious conspiracy within starfleet was good.

            • Ty

              The Outer Limits is the best.

            • Ty

              One of my best friends wrote, “Measure of a Man,” generally considered to be one of the best TNG episodes.

              Her stories about working on the show are better, though.

            • Elemenope

              I did like that episode a lot, (and I am a sucker for legal drama/legal philosophy) though I thought the Judge’s “conclusion” was something of an asspull.

            • Ty

              She’s a lawyer, so that’s why she did a courtroom drama as her first script. In an example of something that never ever actually happens, that script was her spec script to get a job interview. They hired her, bought the script, and filmed it let than a month later. That’s like going to a job interview for short order cook and walking out the door the CEO of the company.

            • Elemenope

              That’s fricken’ awesome.

            • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

              “Measure of a Man” is one of the most underrated TNG episodes. I am happy that there are people who love DS9–it’s the only Trek series I have on DVD.

              But I cannot and will not abide such treasonous and faithless slander of the Original Series! Hammy? Melodramatic? Oh! Oh! I need a fainting couch! Seriously though; I love the hell out of the original series. As much as I love The Sisko, there’s nothing like watching the original crew. But then again, I was a kid, watching Trek in syndication in the 70s, so there you go.

              I wish TNG had revisited that nefarious conspiracy within Starfleet. And why did Nemesis have to suck so very badly?

            • Elemenope

              See, for me I only had limited exposure to original Trek when I was very young (though I did see the really important episodes; Space Seed, Tribbles, City on the Edge of Forever) but I actually grew up with TNG and the original crew’s movies (which are substantially more awesome than the show, IMO).

              Nemesis really did suck, but it only really sunk in for me how much in repeat viewings. It was very jarring to have Shinzon be Eames in Inception. First Contact, on the other hand, was quite good.

      • Kodie

        Traitors are people who, while we are at war with someone, aid the enemy. Dissent is not aid, you dumbass. It’s our freedom that they’re phuckkin sent to war for, and your idea is we should tape our mouths shut, I think they would rather live and come home than carry out a war against BuIIshlt, so we can continue to have the freedom to dissent. You are mixed up and carrying your own ideas to an extreme, presenting them as moderate “open your eyes” and do what’s “right”, support the war, stave off terrorist acts like building a house of worship in Amer-i-god-damn-ca. How would you like it if you wanted to build your Christian church somewhere and we said you couldn’t? And then we decided that America should wage war against Christianity so they did? Real US soldiers coming after you, you want that or do you want anyone to conscientiously protest something radical like that? I mean, are you treasonous or what?

        • Custador

          “Traitors are people who, while we are at war with someone, aid the enemy.”

          Interesting historical side-note: That’s how George W Bush’s grandfather made his fortune. He organised supplies and finance for Nazi Germany during World War 2. Funny how the Teabaggers never mention that under the heading of “treason”, isn’t it?

          • Elemenope

            The Thyssen Affair, and Prescott Bush’s involvement and what it signified, do not rise to the level of “financing Nazi Germany during World War 2″, especially since Thyssen was arrested by the Nazis before the war began and detained for the duration of the war. Perhaps the worst you could say is that pre-war, Prescott Bush traded with the Nazi regime…like everyone else.

            It would be good material for a teabagger conspiracy-spinning session, though. Throw in Smedly Butler and you’ve got yourselves a ball game!

          • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

            No, they don’t mention how Joe Kennedy made his fortune either.

            • Elemenope

              What, bootlegging liquor into the states? Consider it mentioned.

              Whoopdeewoo. The reason neither Prescott Bush nor Joe Kennedy’s shenanigans get mentioned often is because they aren’t actually all that impressive.

  • Baconsbud

    I have just one thing to say about the statement that we must support the war when it is declared or keep our mouths shut. John if you aren’t over there fighting in what you say are just wars you are full of shit. Neither of the wars are just and have harmed this country more then anything those against it have caused. They aren’t fighting for my freedom and I truly believe they aren’t fighting to protect the US Constitution.

  • Elemenope

    A little help from one of the mods…two of my comments have tripped the moderation flag and I can’t for the life of me figure out why.

    [Got 'em. No, I don't know why they triggered the filter. -VorJack]

    • Ty

      Your comments were deemed, “too sexy.”

      • Elemenope

        I guess so. Now they don’t even show “awaiting moderation”; they have simply evaporated into the Internet ether. I guess they were too sublime to be wasted on Mr. McAlister.

        • Ty

          Maybe we finally have the oppressive police state he dreams of.

          • Elemenope

            Would that make Florien “The Man”?

            • Michael

              Well, he is Dan the Man.

      • http://theskippyreview.wordpress.com Skippy

        Elemenope, does that mean you’re too sexy for this blog?

        • http://WWW.ETHICAL-UNIVERSE.COM johnmcalister

          Oh gosh! Elemenope, don’t tell me you’re sexy too. I had you pictured quite differently.

        • yahweh

          The real question is he too sexy for the catwalk, yeah the catwalk, the catwalk….

    • Custador

      I can see them in the moderation queue (I can only see the comments, I can’t moderate them). I can only assume the filter doesn’t like the URL of the link you’ve tried to post.

      • Elemenope

        That’s the only thing I could think of, though it seemed like a pretty innocuous URL.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X