Ron Johnson Defended Pedophiles?!

A few days ago, I saw Keith Olbermann air a news story on his evening television program, Countdown, which handed Russ Feingold a Senatorial campaign victory on a silver platter. What he aired was live footage of Ron Johnson, Feingold's opponent, testifying before a Green Bay legislative committee against something known as the Victims of Child Abuse Bill, which would have eliminated the statute of limitations of victims of child abuse. At issue at the time was one Father John Feeney, who was being sued by one of his abuse victims in Nevada. Green Bay wanted to make people like Feeney easier to sue by throwing out the statute of limitations which protects such ministers. Ron Johnson testified against such legislation while sitting on the Green Bay Finance council at that time.

Now, I understand fully well why statutes of limitations exist. We don't want people reinterpreting their memories years later and suing for events which never happened. However, in cases of rape or incest, advancements in DNA technology have made such protections less needed, because science has filled the human-memory-error gap. Especially in the cases of rape of children, I'm forced to agree with efforts to eliminate statutes of limitations, since children are often too scared to speak up within the statutory time limits. At the very least, the statute of limitations should be extended when children are involved. Ron Johnson, apparently, disagrees, and argued against making it easier to sue pedophile priests like Feeney.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Strike that, let me rephrase: Are you kiddie fucking me?

This is, without a doubt, the single biggest issue to surface in the Senate campaign in Wisconsin. It might be the biggest Senatorial scandal since Joe McCarthy's witch hunt! The fact that Ron Johnson, in effect, defended pedophile priests using some half-baked, poorly thought out rationales of unintended consequences to small businesses, is unbelievable! (And if you want to know what I'm referencing, see the news clip pasted below.)

But this isn't the biggest shock I've received. The biggest shock is: NOBODY ELSE IS REPORTING THIS!!! The single, biggest, and most devastating scandal to his this, or indeed any, Senatorial election in this state, and it doesn't even get a blurb?!?! Johnson defended pedophile priests! How big a scandal do you need?!?!

Even more baffling, is that the Feingold camp isn't running with this! Seriously, if Russ doesn't attack on this, of all things, then he deserves to lose!

We need to hear six words out of Ron Johnson: "I am sorry, I was wrong." And if we don't hear those six words, then as far as I'm concerned, he's out!

Okay, enough is enough! I'm not only going to write every news organization I can think of about this, but I'm urging everyone else I can to do the same. I refuse to let this story go away. If Johnson, who otherwise would be a pretty decent guy, is blinded enough by his Lutheranism to block legislation which would help victims of pedophiles in the ministry, then he's way too blind for any of us. Hell, why not just elect the pedophile priests themselves to the Senate! It would be equally as smart, and make just about as much sense!

Take up the charge! Write, write, write! Nobody who blocks victims of priestly pedophilia from getting their day in court should ever get the vote in Wisconsin!

Eric

Dumbing Down The Elections

I find it interesting how we as a society seem to be against our politicians being elitist lately. That is, we're against those in politics coming across as ivory-tower academics of the intelligencia. We, the People, it seems, prefer our leaders to be of the people, elected to office by the average Joe and Jane from among the unwashed masses. We prefer the candidate we would rather sit down and have a beer with.

The reason I find this so interesting is that it openly admits that we want our standards for our leaders dumbed down. We don't want the smartest, the most educated, the most studious and the most intellectual to be our leaders. We don't want the smart ones at the helm. We prefer commonality over excellence.

Obviously, what stuns me about this is that those who advocate this are openly stating how they want those running things to be dumber, less educated, and less intellectual. Then, after having said it, they parade this opinion about themselves as if it's somehow some sort of truism we can all agree with. "Elitist, Ivory-tower, out-of-touch," they say.

Seriously? You honestly don't want the brightest bulbs in the chandelier? You prefer the duller knives in your drawer? You'd rather have two bricks short in your load and be satisfied with two fries shy of the Happy Meal?

It's official: The lunatics are running the asylum.

Case in point, take the current race for Wisconsin Governor between Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. Barrett has a B.A. in Economics from UW-Madison, and a Juris Doctorate from UW Law School. He's a member of Phi Beta Kappa. You know, exactly the qualifications we ought to be looking for in a Governor. Scott Walker, by contrast, graduated from Delavan-Darian High School, and then attended Marquette University, but apparently did not graduate, as his own campaign website fails to brag that he did so. He left college to work for IBM.

The contrast between these two could not be more stark. True, IBM is no mere blue-collar job to have on your resume, but not graduating is not graduating. He was not a supervisor at IBM, but merely an employee. An associates degree would at least be something, but we don't even have a brag of that on Walker's campaign website. And working for IBM, as every Dilbert fan knows, is hardly an exercise in being in touch with reality! And these days, one needs at least a bachelor's degree to qualify for any kind of a supervisory job, wheter it be a mere school teacher, or the foreman for your local garbage men. Being a County Supervisor is exactly the sort of job one could have while returning to school part time, but Walker chose to shun academia during his tenure. And this guy thinks his lack of study qualifies him to be governor? Maybe so in 1910, but not in 2010! No way!

Let's only briefly touch on the fact that Barrett has the courage to stand up to wife-beating thugs armed with tire irons, while Walker doesn't have the courage to even go back to class!

Walker is currently leading Barrett 53% to 42% among likely voters according to a CNN/Time poll.

We're living in the fucking Twilight Zone, I swear!

Russ Feingold vs. Ron Johnson is an entirely different case. Feingold has two B.A.'s and is a Rhodes Scholar who went to Oxford. He received his Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law School. Johnson, by contrast, is also well educated, but achieved this without scholarships by working his way through school. He is one thesis paper short of an MBA, having forestalled that final step to go into business with his brother-in-law. What amazes me in this instance isn't the contrast in education, because even though I think Feingold has a clear edge, these two seem about even. What gets me regarding these two is the phase-shift which takes place. Ron Johnson is a business owner. He's "the boss" of his company.

Hang on, don't we hate the boss?

Of course we hate the boss! We all hate the boss! The boss is a jerk! The boss is a blowhard! The boss is the very essence of the ivory tower elitist individual we all hate while they're giving us orders in the workplace!

Unless, that is, he happens to be a Republican running against Russ Feingold. Then he's "one of us," a "man of the people."

What an unbelievable load of bullshit! Look, if you want to vote for Johnson because he's a hardworking and upstanding guy (and I believe he is), then do so. Hell, if he didn't consistently stand for Christianity-biased violations of freedom, even I wold consider voting for him. But please don't do so because you think he's an average citizen. He hasn't been average for a very long time. He's exactly the "elitist" some of you presumably hate.

Look, I frankly don't want some average Joe running things. I want the elite in government. I want the best, and the smartest, the most well educated and the hardest working people in government. I want the cream of the crop, and damn it, I'm PROUD to say so! Our nation deserves nothing less. And everyone who is currently attacking President Obama for being an elitist, including Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, had better justify to me why they actually want a lower standard for America's leadership. I want them to explain how they can dare take this stand, and not want to crawl under a rock for shame.

Enough already with, "I want dumb like me" in politics!

Eric

Mensa, and the Intelligence of the Public

I've recently taken the entrance exam for, and been accepted to, American Mensa. Mensa, for those who don't know, is an organization whose members all test in the upper 2% of registered IQ. And while intelligence is relative (as I often muse that Einstein would say), it's pretty solid that one needs to be a very smart cookie to qualify.

I wasn't even sure it was a good idea to sit for the exam. The original plan was to have come home from work, at my usual 6:30 in the morning (because I'm 3rd shift), and sleep from 7 until about 1:00 in the afternoon, then go for the test appointment feeling well rested. But, no, I ended up being so excited about the exam that I couldn't sleep a wink. I nearly called and cancelled. I showed up for testing feeling quite tired, having not slept in 23 hours, and certain that I would bomb.

I arrived at the Oak Creek Public Library where the test was to be proctored, and found that there were only two other people there: A portly engineer-looking type of man, and an attractive middle-aged brunette wearing physician's scrubs. We were given two exams over the course of three hours, and told that to gain admission, we would need a passing score in one or both of these, but that we would not be told the final score. Instead, we would simply be notified by mail in 7 to 10 business days whether we would be extended a membership offer. I completed my tests, went home, and still couldn't sleep. I wondered if I could possibly re-take the exam later.

Two weeks went by before I got my response in the mail. It was an acceptance letter, telling me that, based on my scores, I was hereby offered membership to American Mensa.

Nobody was more shocked than I.

Seriously, I'm not especially gifted at calculating figures in my head compared to other science majors. I re-took chemistry twice and am about to re-take calculus a second time. I daydream constantly. I sometimes forget what I went into the next room for (which, when your mother has Alzheimer's becomes a rather scary phenomenon!). Sure, I read a lot, and I tend to see things others don't by means of divorcing myself as much as possible from all credulity, but I find it hard to believe that makes my hunk of grey-matter worth all that much.

However, upon reflection, perhaps I really shouldn't be quite so shocked. After all, 45% of the American public think that human beings were created pretty much in their present form, and less than 10,000 years ago. 6 to 8% think that the lunar landings were hoaxed. 25% of registered Republicans think that Obama is the Antichrist, and somewhere around 15% of the general public think he's a Muslim. No, I don't think I'm all that gifted. The ugly truth is that I got into Mensa, because the standards are dumbed down. The stupidity of America has lowered the grade curve. I'm a Mensan, because people are morons.

Okay, that's rather harsh, I admit it. But America needs to hear it, if nothing else so it can be snapped out of its collective sleepwalk. I understand that most are too busy with kids or mortgage to really be well informed, but damn, there's some really stupid shit that people believe! Years after it first went on the market, people still buy Extenz pills. (Now THAT's dumb!) Discovery's most popular shows include Ghost Hunters. Fox News still gets away with calling itself "fair and balanced."

Sure, it sounds conceited of me to take my new membership and use it as a club on people. But seriously, if this is what I'm capable of while groggy and sleep deprived, what other high IQ societies could I possibly join if I tested sharp? Maybe Cerebrals? (Featured in the film, 'A Beautiful Mind, and which only accepts the upper 0.03%.) Or perhaps the Prometheus Society? (Upper 0.003%.) Makes me wonder...

Look, I don't want to insult people, and I certainly don't want to sound like some big-shot. But I've been thought of as dumb all through grade school, and this turnabout feels good. So let me just say: knowledge really is power, ignorance is not bliss, and the cold, prickly truth really is better than the warm and fuzzy belief systems of our grandparents. Now a member of Mensa, I find that my credit score suddenly jumped! I now qualify for financial benefits and loans I couldn't before. Insurance companies like Geico are offering me discounts! In short, people feel safer with their money in the hands of a smart person, despite Enron.

The air isn't so thin up here. Won't more of you come up here and join me? I think you can!

Eric

Taxing Churches to Pay National Debt

Our country is facing a looming financial crisis in the form of a mountainous load of debt. Only a decade ago, Clinton left us a budget surplus and was trimming our national debt. Then Bush garnered enough hanging chads to get elected, and burned up most of that surplus on tax cuts. Politically popular, but guaranteeing our nation would flirt with debt again. Then, after 9/11, having presided over the start of two wars, he felt that a national crisis was best served by reducing national income yet again at the benefit of the wealthy. Add a sweeping sellout to the drug companies for Medicare and Medicaid and yet more tax breaks for the fattest of felines, and you understand how we could have dug such a deep hole in such a short amount of time. Bush never vetoed a single spending bill. Now, at ten trillion and counting, the Bush Debt is projected to reach 17 trillion by 2017, and it is not entirely implausible that the interest owed will exceed our entire national product! And then, frankly, we're fucked!

Way to go, Dubya.

For brevity, I'll ignore the insanity of Republicans using the Bush Debt as a means of unhorsing Obama, who had nothing to do with it. Instead, I'll simply point out how the Bush Debt was partly predicated on a dangerous philosophy, known as "starve the beast." The idea is, limit the amount of money the nation takes in through taxes, and this motivates the government to cut spending. Sounds good, right? But we've seen time and again that cutting spending is easier said than done, and while Republicans often cut taxes, they seldom cut spending. For that matter, neither do Democrats. It's simply easier for a legislator to eat shards of broken glass than it is for him to vote for a spending cut in his district. So, without a significant number of politicians willing to fall on their swords, the debt goes out of control.

This is something I try desperately to explain to my more conservative friends: The beast doesn't starve. The beast borrows from China, Saudi Arabia, and India. And then the beast destroys the dollar.

So what do we do? Admit defeat when it comes to getting politicians to cut spending? I think not. There are some simple things we can do as citizens to get the debt under control. But we have to be smart enough to make sure it happens. Here's our assignment list:

1. Institute term limits. The only way to get a significant number of politicians to vote for spending cuts is to make sure that a significant number of politicians are not concerned with re-election. Term limits are the only way to accomplish this. We need to insist that this gets done. If we do nothing else, we must do this!

2. Re-institute Pay-As-You-Go. George Bush, Sr. enacted pay-as-you-go during his presidency as a means of curtailing government debt, and it worked well. What it means is, you can't propose some new spending increase unless you either propose a spending cut of equal amount elsewhere, or propose a tax increase which will pay for it entirely. Unfortunately, this measure expired in 2002, just in time for his brat kid to give away the farm! We need this rule in place again, badly. And permanently, this time.

3. Let the Bush, Jr. Tax Cuts Expire. This one's a no-brainer. In time of dire national crisis, we simply must call upon those who are financially strongest to help bear the heaviest of the burden. America's been good to the rich. It's time for them to be good back! Because if we lose the dollar, their fortunes are at risk, too, even if they've moved their investments entirely to the Euro or the Yen.

4. Line Item Veto. We gave a line item veto to President Clinton in 1996, but the Supreme Court struck it down two years later. We need to explore a way to give our president the ability to slash spending at the stroke of a pen in a way which will hold up under judicial review.

5. Legalize and Tax Cannabis. Again, a no-brainer. Our economy needs new industry, and new tax revenue at the same time. During the Great Depression, the repeal of prohibition helped to rebuild the economy. We need to end prohibition against marijuana.

6. Consider Rescinding Tax-Exempt Status On Certain Non-Charity Organizations.

It's that last item I'll consider more in depth. Specifically, should we consider taxing churches at this time?

In a way, it makes sense. Corporations, families, soldiers, stores, property owners, highway travellers, and nearly every other walk of life has to pay taxes. When it comes right down to it, even the dead pay taxes! But not a church. What makes them so damned special?

Certainly, our economy could do without greedy televangelists using their ministries as a means to sequester huge swaths of the public's money supply out of circulation! But most churches out there typically struggle just to keep the lights on. One likely consequence of church taxation might be that little churches would instantly go belly-up, leaving only big-box mega-churches in many urban areas.

Another problem is Constitutional. Congress cannot pass any law favoring any religion or denying it's free practice. Certainly, taxing a particular behavior acts as a strong disincentive. Thus, by taxing churches, Congress effectively denies the free practice of religion. Put another way, there's no tax for not going to church. Hence, people are encouraged to be atheist or agnostic. Or at least, discouraged from starting their own independent ministry.

What about the new Islamic Center near Ground Zero? I'll bet lots of people would like to see that taxed! But then, we'd be playing favorites again. If we can tax a Mosque, we have to be able to tax a chapel.

I suppose some people are resentful that churches sometimes get politically active having paid no taxes. It's anything but fair for those who don't put money into the hat to try and have a say in how it gets spent! But there would be an unintended consequence in forcing the issue. As it is, churches try to walk a fine line between being politically active, and politically neutral. This is because there is a law on the books, known as the Johnson Amendment (1954), which states that any non-profit organization cannot be politically active, or else it loses it's tax-exempt status. So churches try to remain politically neutral in theory, while being subtly active in practice, particularly on issues such as abortion or homosexuality. So long as they don't endorse political candidates, they are reasonably safe. However, if we taxed those churches, they might see this as a green light to become community-based political action groups, and preachers would begin endorsing candidates openly from the pulpit. This would be a consequence I would not want to live with!

So, no, I don't think Churches should be taxed. There are too many negative consequences, including one I missed earlier, which is that if Churches get taxed, so likely do humanist and atheist groups, who barely have a budget as it is. However, I do think that the Johnson Amendment needs to be strengthened. Churches should not even think of being subtle in political activism. In this time of national monetary crisis, we can't have ministries who pay no taxes campaigning, even quietly, for any "faith-based initiative" tax dollars. True, this is only a cosmetic solution to the problem of our national debt, but for important reasons concerning the "culture war," the message needs to be sent that non-profit means non-political. If you want to be in the game, you pay your admission fee just like everybody else. And if you are a tax-exempt church, it needs to be understood that such exemption comes at an all-important price:

You fundies stay the fuck out of politics!

Eric

Stem Cell Research Funding Blocked!?!

Oh, shit, they're at it again.

Those who would block embryonic stem cell research are once again rearing their ugly heads, out to sacrifice the lives of the adults that are, in order to save the children that never were.

This past Monday, a federal judge blocked the efforts of the Obama administration to expand ESC research, and the reasons for this blocking have me flabbergasted. You see, I (like all of you) had been under the impression that Obama had reversed the backward and scientifically illiterate meddling of the Bush administration on this issue. But apparently, that isn't the case, as the mass media failed to inform us.

You see, in 2005, during the Bush Jr. years, a bill somehow managed to get through Congress which banned federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. That bill, unfortunately, still stands. What the Obama administration and the National Institute of Health did to get around this, was to argue that federal funding for the research could be done, provided the embryos themselves were provided through private funding.

Not so fast, says a group known as Nightlight Christian Adoptions. According to them, the intent of Congress was to block federal funding of stem cell research altogether, not just the funding of the stem cells. Nightlight Christian Adoptions, by the way, is a group which buys up the excess embryos from fertility clinics and offers them up for adoption to Christian families.

Alas, it looks like these guys might have a case. Congress may have fucked up, but they did get the law on the books, and that's that. But this is just the sort of thing we might expect when our Trophy President does something like take the correct stand in an incorrect way. Rather than tackling the issue head-on and pushing through a bill reversing this previous act, he decided to try an end-around, probably hoping to undo the legislation after the onset of his second term (when all presidents decide to finally take on the tough issues with impunity). It may have worked for a little while, but now the loophole is closing.

This continues the general trend of those on the left being cursed with a limpness of spine while those on the right currently having vertebrae which remain quite turgid, particularly in the neck region. Instead of dealing with the issue now, while we have the power in the House and Senate to do it, we risk putting off this crucial issue until it's too late, when economic discontent has convinced those with little or no money to vote for the party of the wealthy -- just to unhorse the incumbent.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council called this judge's ruling "a stinging rebuke to the Obama administration and its attempt to circumvent sound science and federal law.

I have pointed out in previous posts how the brain, rather than conception, defines the being, and that's scientifically right. How dare this theocratic bastard falsely claim the ground of "sound science!" If ever there were a time for those within the scientific community to come down from the ivory towers and go to war, it's now, lest the emollient left and inflexible-as-a-crustacean right manage to throw away yet another generation of sick people to the ravages of Alzheimer's, spinal injuries, and cancer -- to name just a few maladies ESR promises to cure. Scientists have typically not spoken up for fear of losing their federal funding, but with the funds taken away regardless, what is there really to lose?

Nightlight claims that the Obama administration's guidelines on embryonic stem cell research will decrease the number of human embryos available for adoption.

Interesting. Since when was that any of the government's business?

They have two scientists who work with adult stem cells as part of their lawsuit. As such, they are also saying that ESR increases the competition with adult stem cells for limited government funds.

Hang on, isn't greater competition in the free marketplace a good thing?

This just goes to show, when it comes to limiting big government, "conservatives" don't really believe in it. They want big government even more than liberals do when it comes to their religious agenda.

Frankly, folks, that does it. I'm pissed off! I've put off the publication of my book dealing with this issue for far too long. I intend to raise the hue and cry on this issue. And if you think that the reason I'm doing so has partly to do with the fact that I'm currently living with a mother whose Alzheimer's developed after Bush blocked the stem cell research which might have saved her, well, all I can say is...

You're damned well right I am!

Eric

Tori, Women's Rights, and Porn

Ah, yes! Once again I see how Facebook loves to ignore my blog posts, until at last I post something which is highly critical of their absent-minded bot, and three posts appear at once. I would be inclined to simply remove the offending news-feed program and simply post things by hand, except that Facebook has moved this feature to some dark corner of the technosphere, where none but experienced staffers can find it. Ah, such sweet betrayal.

Anyway, I was listening to Tori Amos the other day, and thinking about some of my dearest friends who enjoy her music along with me, such as my sister, or my former neighbor, Marie. And suddenly it occurred to me that one of the issues I'm most passionate about, namely porn vs. women's rights, is something I haven't blogged about yet. Strange that I've missed this! But here it is, and I hope it's not misjudged.

My problem isn't with porn itself. What really bugs me is how the industry is run. Over and over again we see poor girls who are sucked in by evil thugs, given enough cocaine to make them do whatever they're required to do on camera, and then spat out again, with barely a couple thousand dollars for their dignity -- and that's if they're lucky. Many young women get nothing after they've bared everything.

I, for one, think this shit needs to stop! There are a few enterprising women who have shown the ideal -- Nina Hartley and Jenna Jameson, just for examples. These are women who control their own bodies as their own franchises. But they've been lucky enough to have withstood the slings and arrows of one of the most trap-ridden industries, and also been smart enough to have navigated the reef-filled waters of "The Lifestyle" as it's called. Most are not so fortunate. But in my book, all should be.

Many say that women are belittled and demeaned in pornography. Bullshit, that. Women are worshiped in porn. And the tragedy of it is that these goddesses, in spite of being worshiped by hundreds of thousands of (very!) happy men, do not reap the well-earned financial rewards of this stardom. The money instead goes to the cocaine-dealing, hairy-bodied thugs, who are about as popular as BP, and as ugly as Ron Jeremy.

What we need are some laws which protect the women who strip down and/or have sex on camera for a living. These women need guaranteed compensation for what they do, in clear-cut terms of percentage of product sales (not profit on sales, or the books get cooked), especially if and when footage becomes re-syndicated in a new compilation. At least 75% of that money should go to these women. They've earned it!

Unfortunately, we are so sexually immature and backwards in this nation that this may never happen. Rights for porno women? No politician will even touch that! And because of this, our own prudishness ensures that thousands of young women get taken advantage of, used up, and cast aside again, penniless, likely hooked on drugs, and without hope. ("Children of the Night" as they're called by a cause my friend Marie and I both support.)

If we ever stop being such Puritans, and develop a positive, healthy attitude towards sex (like every adult ought to have anyway), we can start seeing porn stars in a positive light, especially when they turn to the Law. Then we can finally make sure that the profits of the porn industry go to its TRUE stars -- those young women whom we all adore. And that the money stays out of the hands of useless middlemen whose presence is scarcely needed.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

Eric

Mosque Near Ground Zero

The new 13-story Islamic center, which is set to be built just two blocks north of ground zero where Islamic extremism destroyed the twin towers, just cleared a final hurdle recently. the building needs to modify a historic landmark structure, and the approval for this was voted in, 9-0.

This has ignited tempers all over New York, and indeed, the entire world. I therefore thought I'd weigh in on it, since, as usual, people's hearts and minds are in the wrong place.

First, let's understand right off that the debate is in the wrong place. It should not be we, the American public, who are arguing over this Mosque-slash-Islamic-Center. As far as We The People are concerned, such debates are already over. Religious freedom is our founding principle, and that's that. Muslims may build a Mosque whenever, and wherever, they like. The right is theirs. Period. And in a land of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and a free market economy, that's the way it should be.

The debate ought to be among the Muslims!

Yes, the Muslims have the right to build their Mosque near ground zero. But FUCK what a bad P.R. move! Terry Pratchett's fictional engineer, "Bloody Stupid Johnson," could not have designed it worse! There should not be one, NOT ONE, Muslim in favor of this travesty! Every Mohammedan should be in near-riot outrage stage over allowing this big, fat, middle finger to be erected at every New Yorker, and the entire U.S. These Muslim leaders should be asked to step down. These Immams should be defrocked. Any other Muslims behind this should be -- whatever the Mohammedan equivalent of excommunicated is.

So where, oh where, are the enraged Muslims?!

According to the New York Times, certain moderate Muslims are showing "some ambivolence" about the choice of this location.

SOME AMBIVOLENCE?!?!

Okay, I won't join with those who are trying to get legislative and civic leaders to violate religious freedom in order to stop this Center from getting built. But I WILL join with them in voicing my own freedom of speech, and calling this an outrage, an insult, and a deliberately-aimed spit in the face of the families of lost loved ones on 9/11. The sheer stupidity of this is something to behold, and the universality of the myopia among Muslims is staggering. If the popularization of Islam in the West were to be likened to a ship, then it's captain is Peter "Wrong-Way" Peachfuzz! (Go brush up on your Rocky & Bullwinkle, if you don't follow.)

I'll admit it, I would probably be one of those legislators who approved the measures needed to allow this building to be erected. Why? Because Mayor Bloomberg is partially right, we need to show the Islamic world that America stands, if nothing else, for religious tolerance. But the Center will forever be for non-Muslims a wart upon Islam's face. It's spire will be it's first great coffin-nail. It's minaret, a wooden stake through the heart of this vampire-esque religion. These Muslims in New York have raised a Jim-Jones-like glass of poisoned Kool-Aid to their lips.

And the beautiful tragedy of it is, that they don't even realize it.

Eric