You Mosque Be Kidding Me!

'
Note:  Please do not mistake the argument below as anything other than a disgruntled outcry against radical political nuts.  For those who oppose the building of the Muslim Community Center two blocks from the site of the WTC towers for a genuine reason (i.e. not fear-mongering, intolerance, or racial/religious hatred), I respect your opinions and would greatly appreciate feedback via comments below.  Honest discussion is a must.  My message here is simply, don't hate on people just because of their religion or because of some bunk you heard on Fox or because you're scared.  But if you do have a legitimate reason for opposing, I respect your position, and please let me know.  Enjoy!

Alright.  I have had it up to my ears with hearing about this "Ground Zero Mosque."  Anyone else tired of hearing about it?  If I never hear another Bill O'Reilly or Sarah Palin blabbering on about it, it'll be too dang soon.  *Huge Sigh*

First of all, let me point out that for one thing, the Muslim religion as a whole is in no way associated with the crazy wack-jobs who flew planes into the World Trade Center buildings.  They were what we call religious zealots.  That's like the equivalent of those Westboro Baptists who picket at soldier's funerals(you should watch this video if you haven't heard of them).  Now, do we just go hating on all Christians because of the stupid stuff these crazed religious zealots do?  NO.  Get over it, right wing fundamentalists.  You cannot use the screw ups of one extremist sect to condemn an ENTIRE RELIGION.  Now, not everyone is crazy about Christians, but I will tell you that most don't see them in the same light as the Westboro baptists, who just love forcing their young children to shout at soldiers' funerals about how they're all going to hell for being gay and carrying signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."  The bottom line here is that most Muslims do not believe what the extremists who flew the planes into the WTC buildings believed.  Therefore, no harm done putting a mosque near ground zero.  If we used the same logic here in other instances, we shouldn't allow Christian churches near the sites of burned down abortion clinics. 

Point number two.  The right to freedom of religion is guaranteed in the first amendment of our Constitution:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  (source: U.S. Archives)  Unless you support mucking up the friggin' Constitution itself, the very basis of our American government, you cannot be against building this mosque.  (Oh wait, I guess Republicans do want that... Please see the text of the 14th amendment here.)

Point number three, George Bush himself, a Republican mind you, said that the Muslim faith was a peaceful one and that we should not DISCRIMINATE against Muslims.  Bush also mentioned that the Koran says that killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity.  Doesn't sound like evil, murderous teaching to me.  Here's the video of Bush AT A RAMADAN FESTIVAL talking about how we shouldn't hate on Muslims for what happened on 9/11.  It's a good video, so if you can spare the time, watch the whole thing. 

Point number four, there are around 10 million Muslims in the U.S. alone (estimate from islamicweb.com, which used stats from the CIA factbook).  In the world, it's estimated that there are nearly 2 billion Muslims - that's over 25% of all people on Earth.  Islam is also the fastest growing religion, as well as the second largest religion in the world (behind Christianity).  We can't seriously hate 1/4 of the world's population.  It's ludicrous!

Point number five, the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" is actually a community center.  The New Yorker had an article about it recently, saying "Well, for a start, it won’t be at Ground Zero. It’ll be on Park Place, two blocks north of the World Trade Center site (from which it will not be visible), in a neighborhood ajumble with restaurants, shops (electronics, porn, you name it), churches, office cubes, and the rest of the New York mishmash. Park51, as it is to be called, will have a large Islamic “prayer room,” which presumably qualifies as a mosque. But the rest of the building will be devoted to classrooms, an auditorium, galleries, a restaurant, a memorial to the victims of September 11, 2001, and a swimming pool and gym. Its sponsors envision something like the 92nd Street Y—a Y.M.I.A., you might say, open to all..."  Read more of the article here.  Sounds pretty good, actually.  Doesn't sound like something that would be a detriment to the area or damaging to the memory of 9/11 victims - especially since it will have a MEMORIAL to the victims.  C'mon people, let's stop the hate and be reasonable.  There are community centers for African Americans, Hispanics, Christians - duh, the YMCA stands for "Young Men's Christian Association" - so why shouldn't there be community centers for Muslims.  I can't even believe we have to argue this point.  It's called HUMAN RIGHTS.

Lastly, I want to share a link to a photo project by Daryl Lang which shows various buildings, businesses, etc. that are roughly the same distance from the WTC buildings as the proposed Community Center (aka "Ground Zero Mosque").  You should really check it out.  Some of the buildings include fast food restaurants, a gentleman's club, and a betting shop.  I really don't think this should even be a problem.  I think a lot of the victims would say, 'You know, I really wouldn't want a couple of crazy nuts to ruin the freedom of Muslims all over America,' who, may I add, were likely victims or family/friends of victims of 9/11.  It's just another excuse for people to hate on others. 

We're in Deepwater Now

'
Yay for new posts!  Now let's get down to business.  I'm sure everyone has heard about the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Big news!  Well, I was watching Rachel Maddow recently when I heard an interesting bit of information.  


Apparently, a spill by the same company as the one going on right now, happened in the same place - the Gulf of Mexico - back in 1979 AND - here's the kicker! - they used all the same techniques to try to get rid of it and guess what!  Yeah, they didn't work then, either.  

Alright, first of all, I'm pretty upset about this whole thing.  It seems obvious to me that we are simply not ready to handle drilling offshore in such deep waters.  (Sorry, a little pun there, unintentional if you believe it.)  The oil spill going on right now is about 5,000 feet below sea level.  If you look back, the similar one I mentioned from 1979 was about 200 feet below sea level.  That spill lasted an amazing NINE MONTHS.  I kid you not.  So, why in the world would we believe we can handle a spill in 5,000 feet if it took us nine-friggin-months to clean up a spill 30 years ago in only 200 feet?  


Well, perhaps you think, well we have better technology now.   Perhaps we do, but if I recall correctly, the same sort of back-up system in place in the Deepwater Horizon was used in the 1979 spill.  And, yeah, it didn't prevent a spill then, either.  Perhaps if we had better methods for cleaning up the spill, then it would be okay to delve so far beneath the ocean waves to pump up oil.  But, yeah, we don't.  The same methods are being used to clean up this one as 30 years ago.  The same chemicals are being sprayed into our oceans (endangering sea life) now.  And it's been proven these chemicals are unsafe to the animals whose habitats our greedy oil tycoons have invaded in the first place.  But, we keep on using them.  


Apparently, these chemicals are not only unsafe for the animals (and also, not biodegradable, big shocker there) but they are also not actually supposed to be used for getting rid of the oil, only dispersing it into a larger area.  Seriously.  As if killing more wildlife will make the situation any better.  Their cap didn't work either.  What about relief wells?  They're expected by August.  Yeah, two months away - and that's just the best case scenario.  (Side note: have you seen all the ways people are thinking up to soak up the oil?  Human hair, goat hair, etc. - but no one is taking them seriously.  What if these things could work?  It's better than shoving golf balls down there, like some doofus at BP suggested.)


Let's talk about how BP has lied about the output of this gushing well from the beginning, shall we?  At first they were saying less, then they were saying 5,000 gallons a day (which happens to be the number they said they were cleaning out of the well, too - strange, huh?), now we know it's closer to 40 to 50,000 BARRELS a day - each barrel containing 50 gallons.  I cannot even comment on this, it's just too shocking.


On top of all this, the oil spill is also threatening the marshes lining our coasts.  Big deal, right?  Well, these marshes, besides being home to countless species of animals and plants that deserve better treatment, are really important for slowing down the progress of hurricanes that come on shore.  The marshes literally save lives every year.  And they are currently being destroyed by this completely out of hand leak.  (And I hesitate to even use the word 'leak' as it's a ridiculous understatement - as if it were a leaky faucet, dripping out oil every now and then.)


I'm sure you can tell I'm pretty ticked off by this issue.  And I will go a step further.  I do not believe we should be drilling offshore.  Not only can we get dangerous leaks such as the one still gushing 2,500,000 gallons of oil every day (I hadn't actually written out the number until now; can you even fathom that much oil?  It's an absolute travesty!), but the simple truth is that we just do not have enough oil on this earth for it to be a sustainable energy source.  


However, looking at the website for the U.S. Energy Information Administration, it seems coal could become a bigger problem (see the link below, there's an interesting graph on page 66, on the right (don't worry, the link is only 5 pages long) showing that coal is projected to have the largest share in our energy sources by 2035.


Still, what about all those great renewable sources like wind and solar?  According to the EIA (mentioned above), in 2007 we used a total of (maybe you should sit down?) 101.545 QUADRILLION Btu (Side note: "The British thermal unit (BTU or Btu) is a traditional unit of energy equal to about 1.06 kilojoules. It is approximately the amount of energy needed to heat one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit." - direct quote from Wikipedia.)  I wasn't even sure that kind of number existed!  It's like a thousand trillion (which is a thousand billion, which is a thousand million, etc.)  It's like a thousand times our national debt - Times another hundred!  It's ridiculous.  Out of that, 86.212 Quadrillion Btu came from fossil fuels (total).  Petroleum was accountable for 39.773 Quadrillion Btu.  Coal was close behind with 22.776.  But the renewables? - total, about 6.813 Quadrillion Btu, with wind at 0.341 and solar at 0.081.  


We're really in a pickle here, folks.  That oil isn't going to last forever, and as we can see from this oil spill, which I forgot to mention before is way way worse than the Exxon Valdez spill up near Alaska, drilling offshore is dangerous.  Our economy can't handle importing so much fossil fuel from the Middle East and other countries.  I don't know much about Natural Gas (23.637 - usage in 2007), but coal pumps harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  I generally think Obama is doing pretty well, but where's all that renewable energy he was talking about?  I wish it were more of a priority for him (though I understand what kind of mess he has to clean up after the last ding-a-ling in office).


Everyone should take a look at the report on electricity, here:  http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf as well as the energy usage report I quoted, which can be found here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html 


I am truly sorry for any inaccuracies, and don't forget to post your comments!  This should be a good one for discussion.


Progress on the book:  somewhere around 15 pages so far, and major plot developments worked out, at least in theory.  It's looking pretty good.  When I don't have any ideas for the scene I'm doing, I go back and do some editing.  Overall, it's going well.  I'm currently reading another Danielle Steel book called Toxic Bachelors.  I think I'll start making a little note of what I'm reading, from now on.

May 4th

``

Today is May 4th, which happens to be the 40th anniversary of the Kent State shootings.  I don't know how many people know what happened that day.  Before I came here, I didn't have a good idea of what took place.  Before I read the article in the Stater today, I didn't have a good handle on the specifics, either.  (And this is all coming from the Kent Stater from yesterday and today).  Let me fill you in, then:

In the days leading up to May 4th, 1970, protests over the Vietnam war were happening all over the city of Kent as well as on campus.  On May 1st, some students rioted in the streets and smashed several shop windows.  On the 2nd, the ROTC building on campus was burned down by more rioters.  That night, National Guardsmen were called and assembled on campus.  On May 3rd, Guardsmen advanced on a crowd of protesters heading back onto campus after a street blockade, drawing blood from a few with their bayonets and threatening a few students with billy clubs.  They used tear gas on the crowd.  Ohio governor James Rhodes called the protesting students "the worst type of people we harbor in America."


On May 4th, it was a sunny, beautiful spring day.  More protests were planned on campus, with students gathering at the Victory Bell to hear speeches by their peers.  2,000 students gathered on nearby Blanket Hill, chanting things like "Pigs off campus" and "Hell no, we won't go."  Guardsmen in an army jeep yelled through a bullhorn, telling students to disperse and reading them the riot act.  The students laughed back - their peaceful chanting was nothing close to a riot.  Then the guardsmen advanced toward the students on foot, throwing tear gas canisters into the crowd, once again.  Some students threw them back, but most ran up the hill around to the other side of Taylor Hall.  The Guardsmen continued marching forward, confusion and cacophony ensued, and some rocks were thrown on both sides.  A kind of stalemate seemed to happen and the tear gas stopped.  Students began celebrating, chanting, "they're out of gas, they're out of gas," and laughing.  But the Guardsmen knelt and took aim at the students.  A few students came toward them with flags in hand, but the Guardsmen huddled up and then seemed to retreat back up the hill.  Students clapped and chanted, "They're leaving, they're going, we've won."  But, out of 76, 28 of the Guards suddenly turned and fired on the students.  For 13 seconds, the pop of gunfire was heard all around Taylor Hall and the nearby parking lot.  13 students were hit, from 60 to 750 feet away from the shooters.  Four young college students lost their lives:  William Shroeder, Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, and Sandy Scheuer.  Three of the four students killed were in the parking lot, several hundred feet from the Guardsmen who opened fire.


It was very emotional, reading that story today.  Hearing the account of the shootings from the students' point of view was moving.  It really hit my heart to finally hear how the events of that night played out.  


This year, Kent State remembered May 4th with a candlelight vigil last night, and several speakers, as well as cancelled classes today.  Several of those who were wounded and many witnesses spoke today on Blanket Hill, sharing their stories with the next generation.  Even though the blood that stained the grass on the hill that day is dead and new grass has sprung up to cover the ground where the slain and wounded students lay, they will not be forgotten.


Please check out the interactive map chronicling the events of May 4th, 1970 at KentWired.com.  Also, check out the article from today's Stater which tells the story of May 4th from the students' point of view.