This leftie write about why Americans are afraid of Mosques and Muslims. I personally reject the premise.
I would think mosques themselves are not terrifying, as the likelihood of being the victim of a suicide bomber when you're near one is probably pretty close to nil (although the JDL still apparently exists). As to Muslims, most I know don't scare me (except perhaps that six foot three wannabe Italian from Carroll Gardens who helped lead the fight against the battered women's shelter), and besides, they generally make better falafel than the kosher places.
I've been outspoken in my belief that those making an issue about the Young Men’s Islamic Association proposed for The Holy Mother Coat Factory facility are dead wrong, and un-American to boot. However, that being said, this article is total crapola.
First of all, I don't know if "fear" is quite the right word, and while I do think garden variety ignorance and xenophobia are part of the problem, let's face facts; the issues most Americans have with Islam do not stem from being brainwashed by "government policy and actions since the attacks of 9/11," they stem from those attacks themselves, and are further amplified by a well justified revulsion towards other actions taken by fanatics in the name of Islam.
But that doesn’t make the opposition towards this facility and other Islamic projects right; it just makes the author of this article a jerk. Why Americans Are Terrified of Mosques and Muslims – uprisingradio.org uprisingradio.org
Dubya's favorite Muslim wants to build a mosque in NYC? Now that I might oppose. Bush Administration Tied To Radical Islamists | The New Republic www.tnr.com
Oh yeah, fuck the crackers. The Mosque, The Confederate Flag … And "Offense" – The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com
Iran: The options suck. Is An Attack On Iran a Good Idea? – International – The Atlantic www.theatlantic.com
Senator Kevin Parker may just be the luckiest man in Brooklyn. Even discounting the possible results of a trial, this postponement means, at a minimum, that he won't be stuck in court during the campaign, and that there's now a story that, no matter what the truth, will reflect really badly on his opponent.
An especially good day for Republicans, as the Parker story is now being kept alive through the general election, with Senate Republicans already planning to use Parker as their own Charlie Rangel. Special Prosecutor to Oversee Case Against State Senator – City Room Blog – NYTimes.com cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com
Senator Huntley's "news conference ended without questions from the press but with a prayer by a member of the clergy who said 'those who condone it [the harassment] need to be taken off the ballot.'”
Does this seems a little pat to you? A tableau of multi-cultural supporters, a man of God making insinuations about the …opponent, and no questions from reporters allowed.
Other possibilites?
Well young candidates sometimes have immature supporters, and angry gay men have sometimes been known to send flowers to those who've scorned them (my bet would be on the Jim Owles Club).
But my inclination is to suspect that the suspect lives closer to home. State Sen. Shirley Huntley: "I Will Not Be Stopped" By Threats www.nydailynews.com
As embarrassing to Democrats as the charges against Charlie Rangel are, none of them compare with the excruciating cringe power of Rangel’s speech "defending" himself.
In Mo Udall's "Too Funny to be President" he talks about how Rangel's predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell, made a speech which on its own destroyed a carefully worked out compromise to keep him in Congress. By contrast, Rangel's speech won't cost him his seat (although if I were Vince Morgan I'd send a copy to every voter on the UWS), but may spell the end for dozens of his Democratic colleagues. Stewart: Rangel An Old Jew? capitaltonight.com
Beck: Same sex marriage neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, and it might even lick my love pump.Glenn Beck does not oppose gay marriage | Media Matters for America mediamatters.org