A few articles on the Manhattan mosque disgrace. A piece in the Times on Mayor Bloomberg’s staunch support for the project. And another by Christopher Hitchens (who writes with a new sort of power, unbent in the face of a grim cancer diagnosis) in Slate on the disgrace of the opposition to the project . I think Hitchens is far too credulous or perhaps better to say accusatory in cherry-picking a few quotes from Imam Feisal Adbul Rauf. But he’s more right than not in arguing that these are really beside the point. We don’t demonstrate our values by disgracing them. The whole episode is really far beyond the particulars of the identities of the organizers of the project — notwithstanding the fact that the Bush administration picked the Imam leading the effort to represent the US abroad as a spokesman for pluralist, moderate Islam.
Indeed, what’s struck me in recent days about this ‘controversy’ is how much the opponents of the project have more or less given up on the idea that Rauf et al. are some sort of crypto-terrorists or radical Islamists or somehow or another in hock to bin Laden or Hamas or whomever else. Yes, there are some people still claiming this. And various critics are still distorting scattered quotes from the past or seizing on Rauf’s failure to denounce this or that group sufficiently. By and large though the critics are conceding this point. The core of their argument now is simply that there shouldn’t be any mosque anywhere in the vicinity of the Trade Center Complex. (Set aside for the moment that this mosque isn’t really a mosque; it’s more like a YMCA, perhaps YMMA. And there’s already at least one mosque already there.) Read More
Is this judicial snark?
One of our commentators pointed out this passage in Judge Walker’s ruling today in the Prop 8 case …
Proponents also point to harm resulting from “a cloud of uncertainty” surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents’ appeal is resolved. Doc #705 at 10. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse.
The Post lays out the options. Elizabeth Warren, principled reformer or power-hungry extremist freak?
Air Force combat aviator gets accused of rape by whackadoodle guy with a history of making unsubstantiated rape allegations. The accuser claims to have been working undercover for the Air Force to ferret out HIV-infected men who were planning to intentionally spread HIV to military men through sex parties. Hence his nude presence in the hot tub with the aviator. (The shrewd local detective observed wryly in his official report: “It should be noted that [the accuser] could not give me an answer as to why he, himself, had gotten naked.”) The police investigate and find not just no evidence of rape, but what appears to be a made-up story. The Air Force investigates, too, and finds no wrongdoing.
With me so far? Here’s where things really get crazy.
In defending himself, the aviator argues it was consensual sex and in so doing reveals himself to be gay. That is in apparent violation of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and now the Air Force is trying to boot him out of the service, just one year before his 20-year hitch is up and he gets his pension. Megan Carpentier has the details.
Not quite sure what to make of this yet. But SurveyUSA’s polls this year are leaning pretty strongly toward the GOP candidates relative to most other pollsters.
What caught my eye was this result for the California Senate race which has Fiorina over Boxer by 5 points, even though all the other recent polls, including Rasmussen, show Boxer ahead by at least a few points and in some cases by almost 10 points. So for instance, the current TPM Poll Average for that race gives Boxer a 2.6 point edge. But take out SurveyUSA and the margin pops up to 5 points, which is a big difference when a lot pollsters are following this race. Read More
TPM Reader GH walks us through a taxonomy of the varieties of Birthrighterism …
I think we all seem to be missing a key distinction among the different shades of public figures calling for us to re-examine birthright citizenship. People like Alan Keyes or Tom Tancredo get credit for being against revising the 14th Amendment, but in truth, their position is actually crazier than Lindsey Graham’s.
Like you were there! Experience Rep. Charlie Rangel’s 80th Birthday Bash-cum-fundraiser in today’s TPM Slideshow. Middle fingers not included.
A new ruling just came down in the Prop 8 same-sex marriage case, and it’s a little hard to capture in a headline. So let me explain.
First the background: When the federal judge in California declared the Prop 8 ban unconstitutional, he also issued a temporary stay of his ruling. Opponents of same-sex marriage wanted him to extend that stay for the duration of their appeal of his ruling; supporters of same-sex marriage wanted him to deny the opponents’ request and also lift his temporary stay.
The judge just ruled on these competing requests. He found no reason to stay his original decision while it is appealed, so he denied opponents’ request. But, being a lowly district judge, he realized he’s not going to have the final say on this matter anyway. So he extended his temporary stay until next week to give opponents time to appeal his denial of the stay to the 9th Circuit.
The upshot is that the ball is where everyone expected it to be all along, in the 9th Circuit’s court.
TPM Reader CL flags this blog post from Bryan Fischer from back in April:
The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries, where they can live in a culture which shares their values, a place where they can once again be at home, surrounded by people who cherish their deeply held ideals. Why force them to chafe against the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West?
In other words, simple Judeo-Christian compassion dictates a restriction and repatriation policy with regard to Muslim immigration into the U.S.