The media is largely misreporting Obama's statement and its consistency with public opinion.

But Fox also followed up with this question:

Regardless of whether you think it is appropriate to build a mosque near ground zero, do you think the Muslim group has the right to build a mosque there, or don’t they have that right?

Here, the numbers were nearly reversed: 61 percent of respondents, including 69 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans, said the developers had the right to build the mosque; 34 percent said they did not.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Obama Defense of "Ground Zero Mosque" Less Risky Than it Seems

What I find bizarre about some of the conservative response to Cordoba House is not just the objection to the construction of the mosque, but the conviction that it should be stopped by any means necessary—even if that means violating conservative principles about property rights, rule of law, and federalism.

Part of supporting limited government is understanding that sometimes, things you don’t like will happen, and the government (especially the federal government) won’t do anything about it.

Furthermore, since Islam has 1.2 billion adherents and is not going away, it is important to set reasonable guidelines that promote harmony with Western society—such as, it’s okay to build a mosque in the Financial District, and it’s not okay to blow up buildings in the Financial District. A general policy of exclusion is unworkable.

A Very Long Post on Cordoba House - The Agenda - National Review Online

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who runs the Cordoba Initiative with his wife, named his project “after the period between roughly 800 and 1200 CE, when the Cordoba Caliphate ruled much of today’s Spain, and its name reminds us that Muslims created what was, in its era, the most enlightened, pluralistic, and tolerant society on earth,” he wrote in his 2004 book What’s Right With Islam.

Why Cordoba? - by Marc Tracy - Tablet Magazine - A New Read on Jewish Life

Thanks to a cluster of aircraft manufacturers such as Learjet, Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft, the economic focus of Wichita – population 366,000 – is very different from the emphasis on services and consumer demand typical of 21st-century America. According to a study published late last month by the Brookings Institution, a Washington think-tank, nearly 28 per cent of the city’s gross metropolitan product is sold abroad. That makes it the most export-oriented in the country, just ahead of Portland, Oregon – noted for its computer and electronics companies – and San Jose in California’s Silicon Valley.

According to Bruce Katz, the study’s author, these areas could be at the vanguard of a fundamental transformation in the US economy – away from consumers and housing towards investment and exports. “I personally think [Wichita] will be the norm in the next 10 to 15 years,” Mr Katz says.

FT.com / Comment / Analysis - America: A new way forward

Shannon wrote:
The moderates usually stay out of the debate.

The ones I quoted are visible moderates. Unfortunately, the Canadian has been subjected to physical violence for taking the stand he has taken.

This reminds me of the violence faced by people in the south who stood up against segregation a generation ago. The KKK did not use the democratic process. The ideas they promoted were marginalized within an environment in which they could be freely expressed. We don't need to censor these people. We cannot lower ourselves to their level and begin using force to attack the expression of ideas that we do not like!

The whole problem with the way that Conservatives are going about this is that they are targeting muslims - they are targeting islam. Muslims are not the problem. Islam is not the problem. You can worship Allah and be perfectly peaceful.

The problem is religious statism. The whole purpose of a state is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. The state is inherently about violence. A religious state is inherently about religious violence. If violence has no place in religion than the state can have no place in religion either.

At this point it ought to be just as clear to us that the idea of religious statism is wrong as it is that racism is wrong. Unfortunately, it isn't. Republicans are unclear on this point, and they have cultivated this idea within their community, so they are ill equipped to go after it, and the left doesn't seem to have the guts to call a spade a spade anymore.

If the problem is religious statism we must, as a first principal, uphold the right to freedom of religion. We cannot use the government to shut this mosque down. Doing so compromises the core of our argument. It would be totally hypocritical, and they would not hesitate to call us on it.

RE: At Ramadan Iftar dinner, Obama supports new mosque on private property near Ground Zero | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Shannon wrote:
Although on the other hand, it does seem like a symbol of conquest to put a mosque at such a place.

Yes, it does. Its been pointed out that the name Cordoba is a reference to a city in Spain with a large central building which was at one time a mosque. Like many cities in Europe, Cordoba bears the consequences of numerous conquering civilizations. The site was first a Roman Temple, and then a Visigothic Christian Church, and then a Mosque, and then it was converted into a Catholic church (which is what it remains today).

Its not clear to me what the motives of the individuals building this mosque are. Wikipedia has some interesting critical observations from other Muslims:

Another founding member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, Zuhdi Jasser, who is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group of Muslim professionals in the Phoenix Valley of Arizona, strongly opposed the mosque, saying:

For us, a mosque was always a place to pray...—not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement. Ground Zero shouldn’t be about promoting Islam. It’s the place where war was declared on us as Americans."[21] Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9/11, said: "I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world."[127]

Authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:

We Muslims know the ... mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, ... as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.... As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.[128]

There doesn't seem to be a smoking gun regarding this community center but there is a lot of smoke. Nevertheless, in a free country certain things are outside of the realm of politics and opposition to this mosque is one of those things. It should not be a political issue.

Muslims don't respect free speech

I think thats a silly generalization. Of course there are muslims who respect freedom of speech.

I'd be happy to support their freedom of expression they day they realize it's a two way street.

I don't think its a two way street. Freedom of speech means tolerating the expression of views you dislike. Let the totalitarians speak. Their ranting opposition to freedom of speech is easily refutable. People who are capable of independent critical thinking do not believe this sort of tripe, although unfortunately there are an aweful lot of people who fit into that category.

RE: At Ramadan Iftar dinner, Obama supports new mosque on private property near Ground Zero | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

This point of view seems tremendously reasonable, and if Obama has done little else for the Constitution at least he was willing to speak out here.

The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

For a moderate example of the tortured logic on the other side take Charles Krauthammer.

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

None of these things is a content based constraint upon the freedom of speech imposed by a state or federal government. It doesn't take much knowledge of the Constitution to be able think your way though this issue, and Krauthammer obviously gets caught up in his biases.

Simply put, the federal, state, and city governments cannot, will not, and should not act to prevent this community center from being constructed simply because it serves muslims. If you don't get this you don't get the first amendment.

At Ramadan Iftar dinner, Obama supports new mosque on private property near Ground Zero | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Corporations are issuing debt on record terms (and in the junk market in record volume).  IBM recently issued three year paper at a meager 1 percent.  And JNJ just set the record for longer paper — “around 3.10% for the 10-year maturity and 4.5% for the 30-year paper if market conditions hold.”  In a nutshell, while there are many variables at play, front and center is investors’ desire for safety and income.

It seems impossible to get 1.5% on cash these days. Savings accounts are paying better than CDs! Remember when you could save money?

Weekend Miscellany | The Big Picture

About 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 — or 8 percent — had at least one parent who was an illegal immigrant, according to a study published Wednesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington.

There are lies, damn lies, and there are statistics.

Here is the lie:

“They come here to drop a child,” Mr. Graham said.

This conclusion is not supported by a study which shows:

More than half (of mothers in the country illegally) had been in the country for five years or more.

But drawing any conclusion from the study is impossible because:

Some researchers noted that the Pew figures did not identify families where both parents were illegal immigrants.

Come on! You obviously had that data! How many of those 8% have at least one parent who is American? Don't you think that data point is relevant to the ensuing policy discussion you desired the study to provoke!?

Nonpartisan my ass.

Lying with numbers

Perhaps I've written about this before - someone asked me what I thought about net neutrality and my response turned into a bit of a rant. I thought I'd open it up...

I mostly avoid paying too much attention to the net neutrality debate. Net Neutrality is a negotiation between large Internet content hosts (primarily Google) and large ISPs (like AT&T and Verizon). There are legitimate questions about the architecture of the Internet, which has attracted law professors like Tim Wu and Larry Lessig. There are also, frankly, legitimate concerns about over regulation of the Internet. However, there are much more important issues and this one gets way more attention than it deserves.

Back in the 1980's long distance telecom was expensive, even if all you were doing was sending an email, so most information access involved online services like Compuserve and AOL. In the online service model your service provider hosts most of the services you want to access, such as email, discussion forums, online shopping, etc in a location that is physically close to the place you dialed into, instead of far away on the Internet, because far away services were expensive and didn't work as well. As telecom became more efficient, online services were mostly supplanted by the Internet, because it gave consumers more choices in terms of what services they accessed. Now a days often all you get from your internet service provider is network access, and your email, discussion forums, and other services are hosted by other companies in other physical locations, such as by Google. When you use the Internet, its hard to tell how far away a server is - they all seem to work well no matter how far away they are. (*)

However, the internet is not perfect, there are still high bandwidth services like streaming high resolution video that are expensive and unreliable over long distances. Google wants to make it illegal for ISPs to provide those services locally in an online service type model, because those local services would be difficult for Google to compete with from a remote location on the network. Thats the issue in a nutshell.

Google has spent a tremendous amount of money trying to convince people that this is a grass roots political issue which is a fundamental matter of Internet freedom. That spending has been very effective - I constantly run into people who don't follow Internet issues very closely who are concerned or angry about net neutrality, and of course they form their own center of gravity, attracting others to the cause with their genuine concern. This is the only Internet freedom issue that gets regular support from professional politicians - Al Franken, for example, talks about it because they are donating money to his campaign, and not because he really understands internet issues.

There are two reasons why this issue is overwrought and phony:

1. A real net neutrality discussion which would have real relev... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]