Dean suggests ‘compromise’ on Park 51: No point doing ‘something good’ if met with ‘enormous resistance.’
He's dead wrong on this issue and his logic is so twisted, it makes me think the Dems are trying to be too cute by half in dealing with this non-issue.
Either we have religious freedom or we don't. Islam did not attack us on 9/11.
Also, if you don't live in NYC, shut the fuck up.
And Jon Oliver on the Daily show said it best when he stated that by the anti-muslim community center folks (it isn't a Mosque, btw) logic, we should ban all Catholic Churches from being built anywhere near a elementary school.
Also, by this logic, we in San Francisco can ban all Mormon Cult buildings due to their financial support against granting gays equal rights.
You are dead wrong, Dean, and your comment that liberals need to be flexible is pretty fucking stupid. I think we've been flexible way too much.
"Of course, if progressive movements throughout history had followed Dean’s advice, there’d be very little progress. During the health care debate, Howard Dean boldly said, “I’m going to fight for a public option until we get one. It really is that simple. … We will not stop because Democrats in Washington say it’s done. We will not wait 20 years — 10 years — we will not wait a single year — because we will not stop until every American has the option to voluntarily buy into a program like Medicare.” It appears that running into the “enormous resistance” of the U.S. Senate and political opposition from the insurance, drug, and medical-industrial industries did not stop Dean from fighting for a public option. One has to wonder why he feels like it would be enough to sacrifice the rights of American Muslims to peacefully worship where they please."
Though, he did get this right:
Dean: Individual Mandate Will Be Removed From Health Care Reform By 2014:
"On Friday, the former DNC chair took his skepticism with the individual mandate to a different, more provocative level. Appearing on MSNBC, Dean predicted that the policy will be removed from the legislation by the time much of the reform is implemented in 2014."
For people who ask why I'm so pissed at OA. Here's a partial list.
Daily Kos: Olbermann said it. Rude Pundit said it better.
And to Obama's defenders, from the professional flacks like Gibbs to
the amateur hero worshipperspeople around here, howzabout answering the criticisms for once, instead of attacking the messenger or changing the subject with a list of exaggerated achievements. Go ahead:
*Justify giving torturers and war profiteers a pass
*Justify prosecuting whistleblowers
*Justify ordering assassinations
*Justify claiming the right to imprison people FOREVER without trial
*Justify 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan at a cost of 30 billion dollars a year
*Justify appointing Ken Salazar
*Justify not firing Ken Salazar for his incompetent oversight of MMS
*Justify letting BP try to cover up the size of the spill through the massive use of dispersants
*Justify the formation of a Cat Food Commission on Social Security stacked with people who are on the record in favor of slashing it
*Justify campaigning for Blanche Lincoln after she threatened to filibuster health care insurance reform if it had the public option
*Justify candidate Obama's 180 on FISA and subsequent lying about safeguards that the bill did not contain
*Justify appointing two of the architects of the biggest rip-off in human history, Geithner and Bernanke, to his economic team
*Justify having a prominent, homophobic backer of Proposition H8 give the invocation at the inaugural. Out of all the clergymen in the world
*Justify caving in to the right-wing noise machine instead of confronting it on ACORN, Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod
*Justify record defense budgets
*Justify the lack of a strong stand on net neutrality
Add this to the list.
'No Precedent' For Proposed Cuts To Food Stamp Benefits
Has my full support and coin. We need more Atheist in the mix in a bad way.
Daily Kos: An Atheist Running for Congress:
"Doubt and skepticism are part of human nature. Many people who consider themselves religious admit to having occasional doubts about their beliefs. The politically expedient solution to this problem would be to admit that we have had doubts but finally conclude that we believe. What if, however, after looking at the entire picture we are more comfortable with the doubts than the belief? If it is acceptable to have doubts, is it not then acceptable to be a nonbeliever?
Many of the founding fathers of this country came here for religious freedom, but they were escaping countries where rulers told them how to worship not countries that were ruled by nonbelievers. Although many of the founding fathers were Christians, others were skeptics and Deists. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, extolled 'a wall of separation between church and state'. James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, wrote, 'Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government.'"
Bring it on.
Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts | Gadget Lab | Wired.com:
"“The singular criticism of the singularity is that brain is too complicated, too magical and there’s something about its properties we can’t emulate,” Kurzweil told attendees at the Singularity Summit over the weekend. “But the exponential growth in technology is being applied to reverse-engineer the brain, arguably the most important project in history.”
For nearly a decade, neuroscientists, computer engineers and psychologists have been working to simulate the human brain so they can ultimately create a computing architecture based on how the mind works."