The “M” Word

At the risk of being “politically incorrect” … yet again … I’m going to use the “m-word” in this article: 

“Mosque!” … “Mosque!” … "Mosque!" 

There … I said it! How’s that for exercising my First Amendment right to “freedom of speech?” I feel so relieved! Now, I won’t have to call Dr. Laura for any advice.

Speaking of the First Amendment, the proposed mosque in New York City that’s causing such a stir is really a “non-event.” The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” It seems pretty clear to me: people can build the church of their choice on private property anywhere. End of argument! It doesn’t require Presidential or news media endorsements; it’s simply the law. But apparently, a problem arises when people comment on the lack of sensitivity associated with constructing a mosque near what has been termed “Ground Zero” (the former site of the World Trade Center).

A terrible act of terrorism occurred on September 11, 2001, when Muslim extremists crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field just outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania … killing nearly 3,000 people of a wide variety of ages, races, sexes, and religions from nearly one-half of the countries in the world. The 19 hijackers were obviously “equal opportunity terrorists.” They also represented an extraordinarily small percentage of the nearly 1.6 billion followers of Islam who populate the world.

If the Constitution and our Bill of Rights are to mean anything, the law must apply equally to all … and that includes religions. Therefore, the right to build an Islamic mosque in New York City within two blocks of “Ground Zero” is an “absolute.” Timothy McVeigh was baptized Roman Catholic, but I don’t remember Oklahoma City trying to ban the construction of Catholic churches anywhere nearby. And while I’ll grant that Timothy McVeigh didn’t pretend to be acting on behalf of his religion (whether he even had one at the time), those who worship as Catholics were not automatically “stained” by his treachery.

The “rub” comes when one chooses to denounce the lack of sensitivity associated with constructing a mosque in the location that is being proposed (a building that was damaged by the fuselage of one of the commandeered jets). It probably didn’t help when it was announced that the target date for its opening would be September 11, 2011 … the tenth anniversary of the attack (time to fire the mosque’s PR firm). Of course, I wouldn’t take the date too seriously. The likelihood of being able to build a mosque, which is to be topped by a 13-story cultural center with a swimming pool, … in New York City … with union labor … in only one year … is a construction project that even “the Donald” might not have the ego to attempt.

So, let’s just say that you think that it might be just a little bit insensitive to build a 13-story mosque and cultural center in the proposed location. Does that make you a bigot, a racist, or any other term which stereotypes you as an unfair, biased “pig” of some kind? No, actually, it makes you an American. You see, the First Amendment goes on to say that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …” The last time I looked, that means that you have a right to express your disagreement with the choice of the location … or not to express it.

The President chose the latter. While he explicitly chose to reinforce the obvious (that the developer has the right to build the mosque on private property if it otherwise complies with local ordinances), he also chose not to comment on the site selection: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."

In his position, one might wonder why the President felt the need to comment at all. He didn’t exactly jump into the fray when a group of Christian students was ordered to stop praying outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on May 5th (because the police officer thought it was illegal). He might want to take stock in the adage, “Silence is a virtue.” Besides, he has Vice President Biden to handle the Administration’s “foot-in-mouth” duties as well as Press Secretary “Glib” (who has recently gotten himself in trouble for telling the truth). Sometimes I think that the President succumbs to a self-imposed pressure he might feel to “step up” for groups with which he is perceived to be affiliated. That tendency usually winds up requiring an uncomfortable “clarification” or at least a Beer Summit in the Rose Garden. It also creates an embarrassing break within the Democratic ranks when “at risk” politicians like Harry Reid (speaking of racists) read the polls and quickly distance themselves from the President.

The media is a whole other issue. The banter between Liberal and Conservative media outlets is always entertaining. If a Conservative dares to suggest that the decision to build the mosque near “Ground Zero” might be inappropriate, the Liberal media immediately plays the “bigoted, racist pig” card … because, surely, no right-minded person (no pun intended) could possibly think that the selected site might offend anyone! In their view, Americans should look upon this as an opportunity to demonstrate our country’s “open-mindedness” to the world for the same reason so many predominantly Muslim nations proactively encourage synagogues to be built in their countries … preferably near locations of poignant national significance.

Luckily for the Liberals, there are a sufficient number of Conservatives who are stupid enough to assert that the developers don’t have a right to build the mosque … not that’s it’s just a really bad location from an emotional perspective … but that they don’t have a right … because of the whole “Muslim” thing, you know! So, for an extremely small subset of Conservatives (kind of like the terrorists among the Muslim population), the Liberal bantering may be appropriate. These people probably are “bigoted, racist pigs” … at least, to a degree. I might have to “give a pass” to those who lost a loved-one or friend on 9/11 and don’t care whether it’s legal to build a mosque there. You know how “bad feelings” can linger for awhile.

The interesting thing is that most pundits actually agree that the First Amendment applies and that the right to build the mosque definitely exists. Well … that’s almost the equivalent of bipartisan agreement!

What I find most interesting is the attempt by certain factions to “shut down” any expression of sentiment that the mosque shouldn’t be build near “Ground Zero.” I hate to bring up the First Amendment again, but doesn’t it also say, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …” and isn’t that all that this opinion is … an expression of free speech? Where’s the ACLU when we need them? Why is it that the same people, who clamor for the removal of religious artifacts of any kind from public property and who defend the rights of individuals to burn flags as an expression of “freedom of speech,” are nowhere to be found on this subject? Shoot! We’ve got “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” all wrapped up in one. You’d think they’d be all over this. Where’s their sense of “political correctness?” Where’s the shock and horror of those zealots in defense of the families of the victims of 9/11. If you were ever going to jump on a bandwagon in support of a “victims’ rights” initiative, this would be the one.

You can’t claim to support one part of the First Amendment without the other. You can’t argue on behalf of “freedom of religion” while condemning those who are merely exercising their “freedom of speech” when they express their belief that the selection of sites is in extremely poor taste. If you do, you must be some sort of “bigoted, racist pig.” I’m just kidding with regard to the last assertion. I just wanted you to personally experience how it feels when you do it to others with whom you disagree. So ends today’s lesson.

And as a special shout out to Dr. Laura … Dear Dr. Laura: don’t you wish you would have gone with a word that started one letter sooner? In the mean time: you are your kid’s mom … and I am my country’s Common Sense Czar. Now, go have a good day!

*****

Copyright © 2010 Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

A Round of Gulf

Contrary to popular belief, I have not just returned from a luxurious ten-day vacation in the south of Spain. You must be confusing me with someone else. The reality is that I cannot afford to take a vacation like that … particularly in today’s economy. No, I just stayed at home and watched the Discovery Channel’s outstanding series, Shark Week.

If you’re not familiar with the annual series, it’s a week-long series of special programs that are completely dedicated to sharks. Its compelling content is both educational and frightening. Nothing has scared more people into abandoning any thought of entering our coastal waters … with the possible exception of BP.

Speaking of Bad Pumps … how about the leadership President Obama showed during the oil spill crisis? President Bush arrogantly suspended the Jones Act less than three days after Katrina struck New Orleans to allow foreign vessels to move about more freely in the Gulf of Mexico to assist us. With a far better plan, President Obama diplomatically declined 21 offers of aid from 17 different countries for more than two months from the date that the spill began. While some may question the logic of this bold and decisive action, it preserved jobs for the union members who were hired to assist with the clean-up (albeit without the state-of-the-art equipment that was being offered by the other countries). When the economy is suffering (clearly because of the ongoing impact of the Bush Administration), job preservation has to come first. That’s also why the President’s moratorium on drilling … that immediately cost 8,000 deep-water rig operators their jobs along with the 23,000 or so workers who support those rigs … was such a stroke of genius! Those people can immediately shift to “green” jobs that will lower America’s dependence on foreign oil … at least, theoretically.

You also to have to have been impressed with the President’s focus and sincerity:

• On May 27th, he said, "My job right now is just to make sure everybody in the Gulf understands: This is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about. The spill."

• Of course, on September 11, 2009, he said, “As President, my greatest responsibility is the security of the American people. It is the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning. It’s the last thing I think about when I go to sleep at night.”

• And before that, on July 23, 2009, at a town hall meeting in Shaker Heights, Ohio he said, "I know that for the millions of Americans who are looking for work, and all those who are struggling in this economy, full recovery can't come soon enough. I hear from you at town hall meetings like this. I read your letters. These stories are the first thing I think about in the morning and the last thing I think about at night - and the focus of my attention every day."

But hey, this is politics. If you find a phrase that works, just stick with it until the public catches on!

Shortly thereafter, the President’s strength was again on display during his interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show when he said, "I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick." Then, after Tony Hayward (then CEO of BP) said that the environmental impact would be "modest" and he wanted his "life back," the President said that Hayward "wouldn't be working for me after any of those statements." He was apparently so upset that he fired General Stanley McChrystal instead.

Then, the President flexed his political muscle … Chicago style … in a closed-door meeting with Tony Hayward during which he extracted a minimum of $20 billion dollars in reparations. Shortly thereafter, Hayward did the unthinkable; he attended a regatta with his teenage son in which his yacht was participating. What was he thinking … trying to spend a weekend with his teenage son after two months on the road? Needless to say, when the President received the news … sometime between the Major League Baseball game he attended on Friday and the round of golf he played with Vice President Biden on Saturday … he was upset.

And the spill was such a big news story that even the First Lady was called upon to lend her support. Of course, she’s “only a private citizen” … with a staff of 24 assistants for which we pay … but she was gracious enough to do a few public service announcements in an attempt to stimulate tourism in the Gulf coast … just before leaving for Europe with her youngest daughter and her entourage. Muy bueno!

While Michelle Obama was away, the President went on a campaign trip to rally some union workers at a few automobile plants, take advantage of a few photo-ops, blame the Bush Administration for pretty much everything, and then have dinner with Oprah on his birthday. After that grind and upon the First Lady’s return, it was time for some well-deserved time off. Estupendo!

The two of them and their youngest daughter boarded Air Force One and headed to Panama City, Florida … for a whole 27 hour vacation. The President got to spend some quality time alone with his daughter (and a few dozen reporters and camera crew members) swimming at Alligator Point in St. Andrew Bay, which is separated from the actual Gulf by barrier islands. The President himself declared, “the beaches all along the Gulf Coast are clean, safe and open for business.” I guess he saw them from the plane when they flew in. Extraordinariamente reconfortante!

By the way, I’m not exactly sure what the Spanish phrases mean, but it appears to be something that the First Lady and her daughter picked up this summer … probably through a Berlitz course.

I must admit, my favorite photo-opt of their extended Gulf Coast vacation was the one of the President eating some mint chocolate chip ice cream, with some Oreo ice cream for little Sasha, and a hot fudge sundae without whipped cream for Michelle. It was so real! They genuinely looked like a normal family having fun. Had it been politically staged, they would have been eating some sort of tofu since the First Lady’s major initiative is stamping out childhood obesity. Instead, they just had ice cream. How cool is that?

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that, buoyed by the First Lady’s campaign against childhood obesity, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), threatened to sue McDonald’s in June saying, "Using toys to lure small children into McDonald’s is unfair and deceptive marketing and is illegal under various state consumer protection laws.” And now, the city of San Francisco has jumped on board. Of course, San Francisco has already banned bottled water as well as regular Coke and Pepsi from government vending machines. So, why not just ban Happy Meals from the entire city?

Crazy, you say? You simply must remember that San Francisco is a “Sanctuary City.” It’s a “sanctuary” against common sense; otherwise, how would Nancy Pelosi keep getting re-elected. It’s also a “sanctuary” against the Constitution. Don’t like a Federal law (like immigration)? Just ignore it. No one will do anything about it. After all, you’re San Francisco!

If we don’t take this issue “off the menu” right now, what’s next … banning political ads that unfairly “lure” people to cast “unhealthy” votes? How would we survive? We might gain back all the pounds of freedom that these people have tried to help us shed. I guess we’ll just have to add a phrase to the First Amendment that the Framer’s apparently didn’t think would be necessary: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to eat whatever they want.”

Me? I think the First Family got it right on this one! I’m just going to have a hot fudge sundae made with Oreo and mint chocolate chip ice cream and lots of whipped cream ... while I still can.

*****

Copyright © 2010 Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Return of the Czar

I apologize for my long absence, but popular demand required the development of a new blog just for “the Czar.” Also, due to the requests that I received from so many of you, I have spent the summer writing three new books:

The Left isn’t Right
The Right is Wrong
The National Platform of Common Sense

The Left isn’t Right and The Right is Wrong are satirical assessments of the National Platforms proffered by the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, respectively, during the last Presidential campaign. And of course, The National Platform of Common Sense was required to fix the mess left behind by the other two Platforms. Here’s an excerpt from the Introduction to better explain the premise:

“I find that people are generally disenchanted with our politicians. However, it would be inappropriate to blame the inmates for the way they run the asylum. After all, they do warn us … particularly in Presidential election years when they author National Platforms that define their positions. Yet, few of us ever take the time to read those documents to truly understand each Party’s position … even though their positions and underlying beliefs will drive the decisions that dictate the direction in which our country will be headed … or should that be spelled “beheaded?” Shame on us!

“Instead, we tend to take the easy way out and just listen to their speeches and debates (at least as much as them as we can stand); we watch their negative ads (positive ones went away a generation ago); and we let politically jaded wolves, who like to parade around in the sheep’s clothing of “reporting the news” (once an honored profession), deliver thinly veiled versions of their personal opinions and beliefs. As the Common Sense Czar, I say we take a new approach: read the words the Parties have committed to writing and for which we can hold them accountable.

“Now, I know this is a challenging suggestion because Party Platforms are always filled with political platitudes to their own greatness, grossly exaggerated vilifications of the “Opposition,” and a tediously repetitive casting of the of the same old drivel in hopes of gaining a vote. Well, as the Common Sense Czar, I’ve decided to make the endeavor far more entertaining, informative and worthy of your time.

“In hopes of getting you to actually read what the two major Parties have written, I have “channeled” them (in two separate books) … not only providing you with the exact transcript of their Platforms (misspellings and grammatical errors included) … but my own satirical interpretation of what they were actually thinking at the time.”

This Nation’s political landscape has become quite polarized. For example: Liberals won’t read a book by a Conservative leader (e.g., Newt Gingrich), and Conservatives won’t read a book by a Liberal leader (e.g., Bill Clinton). As a result, there never is an effective exchange of ideas between the two major Parties. Cognitive dissonance precludes political zealots from entertaining the thought that their “opponent” might have a point.

It is my belief that humor can transcend the “intellectual wall” that both sides have been so fervently constructing. In addition, it can be seductive. While Conservatives are naturally drawn to books that eviscerate the Democratic Party and Liberals are naturally drawn to books that eviscerate the Republican Party, they can be enticed to experience new ideas if they are entertained along the way. Beyond that, in phenomenon akin to “not being able to divert your eyes when you pass a really bad automobile accident,” I believe that your curiosity will get the best of you and you will be compelled to read your own Party’s Platform … just to see the beating it takes!

A funny thing will happen along the way: perhaps for the first time in your life, you will have read the Platforms of both major Parties and be in a position to make a more informed decision with respect to your support or rejection of their ideals. Then, since many of you will be “disappointed” with the what these “brain trusts” have put together, you’ll be able to read The National Platform of Common Sense, which integrates a hopefully interesting historical primer with the Common Sense Czar’s own satirical assessment of what can be done to restore the Republic.

The manuscripts are complete and ready to go to press. The challenge now will be finding a publisher that’s not afraid to print the books and can get them into distribution in time to wreak havoc on the November elections. I’m hoping that capitalistic interests will overwhelm at least one major publisher and that it will recognize that, unlike traditionally-biased political offerings, the Common Sense Czar’s trilogy should appeal to the entire market (not just the Conservatives or the Liberals). With any luck, the lure of selling lots of books will appeal to them and they’ll jump through a few hoops that they would otherwise avoid.

If any of you have direct or indirect contacts with any book publisher(s), please let me know. There’s a complimentary, autographed copy of the trilogy waiting for you at the end of that rainbow! :O) In all seriousness, I will sincerely appreciate any introductions you can make that can shorten the cycle normally associated with getting a new book into circulation.

All my best,

The Common Sense Czar

Copyright © 2010 Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.