By now, there are few Americans who haven’t been exposed to the furor surrounding the construction of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan. Labeled the “Ground Zero Mosque” by its opponents, the project officially known as Park51 has become a centerpiece for those wishing to use anti-Islamic sentiment for their own advantage. From former Speaker Gingrich’s analogy comparing the Islamic Center to a Nazi sign at the Holocaust Museum, to half-term Sarah’s tagging it as the “9/11 mosque,” the crazies are flying into the issue like moths into a bug zapper.

Of course, as is almost always the case, the loons have no real substance in their arguments. Like Palin’s “death panels,” the specter they raise lives entirely in the minds of the self-serving fearmongers. This is SOP for the GOP, but in the case of Park51, they’ve actually taken their hyperbolic distortion to new levels.

There’s sadly so much wrong with the attacks being levied by conservative opportunists that it’s difficult to identify their most egregious warping of the truth. But anyone interested in honesty need look no further than the contrived project title — now a part of the American vernacular — to witness the unscrupulous use of misinformation. The clever creation of an epithet is actually somewhat remarkable, in a sick sort of way, but its power is destructive and its message a lie.

The Park51 project will build an Islamic community center, not a mosque. The facility will include a mosque, but plans are for a 13-story building that includes a swimming pool, basketball court, auditorium and culinary school in addition to the mosque. The center would also have a library, art studios, meditation rooms, and of significance — a memorial dedicated to victims of the 9/11 attacks. But correctly referring to Park51 as a “community center” just wouldn’t have the same impact as “mosque;” it simply fails to conjure up other-worldly images of central domes and minarets; it’s far too benign and without the power to evoke fear.

And “Ground Zero” — now there’s a term of unmistakable emotional force in contemporary America. Nearly lost is the old association with Hiroshima or with nuclear blasts in general. Today, the mere mention of Ground Zero elicits a swell of emotion that accompanies the recollection of the horror of September 11, 2001. The character of anyone who would abuse the memory of that day for selfish gain is without doubt questionable, yet conservatives have done so ever since the dust settled. And this latest rendition of hate-based leveraging is even more despicable than the rest.

Not only are the plans to build Park51 not at Ground Zero — in fact being at least two blocks away on Park Place — but the location is not even along a path to get to Ground Zero. The specious linking of Park51 to the hallowed ground where the former World Trade Towers stood, where nearly 3,000 people lost their lives, is purely an attempt to create controversy and gain political position. But as morally wrong as this distortion is on the surface, it’s even more reprehensible on the inside.

The Park51 story doesn’t end with the illegitimacy of the project’s label; that’s just the beginning. The heart of the controversy is rooted in the attempt by hate-wing activists to conflate Islam and the 9/11 terrorists. While this is obviously prejudicial stigmatization at its very worst, when wrapped in fearmongering alarm, it quickly gains traction within the large population of xenophobic Americans.

Never mind that there are more than a billion Muslims in the world today. Never mind that the vast majority of those Muslims are peaceful. Never mind that all religions have extremists and those who corrupt or ignore the teachings of their faith. Never mind that even George Bush made it clear that terrorism is “not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” Never mind that there’s already a mosque only 5 blocks from Ground Zero, or that the site for Park51 is already being used as a prayer center. And for Newt and Sarah’s sake, please never mind the fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind Park51, is exactly the type of moderate Islamic cleric that right-wing commentators call upon to speak out against terrorism.

Imam Rauf has routinely spoken out against the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents. He is a Sufi, a practitioner of an older strain of Islam, one whose ethos is egalitarian, charitable and friendly. The Rand Corporation, in a 2007 report, advised Western governments to “harness” Sufism. They contended that its adherents were “natural allies of the West.” And this is exactly the message carried by Rauf, who “has written extensively on Islam and its place in modern society and often argues that American democracy is the embodiment of Islam’s ideal society.”

Rauf is exactly the type of Islamic leader that Americans should embrace and work with to forge better understanding and interfaith cooperation. The stated aim of his organization, the Cordoba Initiative, is “to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions.” For what more can Americans ask?

The proposed name for the building: Cordoba House, is even given in the spirit of harmony. Named for the city in Spanish Andalucía where Muslims, Jews and Christians once co-existed for centuries. It embraces that extraordinary time when these diverse faiths came together and culture and science flourished.

Indeed, the only people involved in this debate who Americans should fear are the usual fact-free suspects on the conservative right. Just as they did during the healthcare debate, under cover of the American flag, they launch all manner of incendiary rhetoric, with complete and total disregard for the truth. Sadly, they do somehow get enough people to buy into their hyperbole that they move public opinion. Recent polls do show 63% of New Yorkers are opposed to a “mosque” near Ground Zero. But with all the negative press, this can be expected. Fortunately, those who live nearest Ground Zero, where the effort is supported by people of all faiths, have not been so easily swayed.

When I originally heard about this issue, my first reaction was, “Oh my god, why would they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero.” But then, of course, I found out that it’s not actually at Ground Zero, and the plans aren’t really for what you would think of as a mosque, and the people leading the effort are moderate, peaceful Muslims, and this may actually be exactly what’s needed to bring people together . . . well, once you get the facts straight, it becomes obvious that it’s rather un-American to stand in opposition. It’s really a case of “Will America uphold the principles on which she was founded, or will she allow fear and hate to rule the day.”

My support for the Cordoba House Islamic Center is unequivocal. I have but one regret in the matter — that I don’t live close enough to engage with these fine people and help them to realize their vision.

But the facts won’t make a difference to dyed-in the-wool conservatives, since the facts will be filtered through their ideological frames: when the facts don’t fit the frames, the facts will be ignored.

The conservative worldview says man has dominion over nature: nature is there for human monetary profit. Profit is sanctioned over the possibility of massive death and destruction in nature. Conservatives support even more dangerous drilling off the coast of Alaska and are working to repeal the President’s moratorium on deep water drilling. Nature be damned; the oil companies have a right to make money, death or no death.

George Lakoff, Huffington Post

I agree with much of this article, but I think the central premise is somewhat askew. I see the problem differently as it pertains to the common conservative. These are people who have real concerns about themselves and their families. They fear the loss of their meager means and the intrusion of those not like them, and these fears are fanned on a daily basis by those they trust — those who seek to exploit their naïveté, to use them.

I’m not an apologist for ignorant conservatives, but I believe that at the core, we all share a similar set of concerns and principles. These people don’t reject a liberal telling them something that doesn’t fit their model because they’re arrogant or uncaring. They do so because they’ve been trained not to trust that “snake oil peddling” liberal.

This dynamic grows in both consequence and complexity in situations like those in the Gulf, or the Appalachian coal mines, or any number of cases where the economic wellbeing of average Americans is wed to the future of given industries.

When liberals rightfully demand a drilling moratorium, or campaign against dirty coal, they position themselves between people and their livelihoods — they ask people to cut of the hand that feeds them.

This is not a problem of a certain people. It’s a societal problem. We need to educate everyone, and when we show them that we care about their personal situation, they just might listen to us long enough to learn.

Most people would agree that 21^st Century life is riddled with issues and complexities that demand attention and beg for resolution. Globalization, an aging populous, and too many years of business-as-usual are all fueling a fire that threatens to burn our Country to its core. With each passing year, the roll call of major national issues continues to grow. This model can’t be sustainable.

I for one would like to see some solutions put into place. I’d like to see a national conversation about what ails us. I’d like to see people of all stripes come to the table, lay out their concerns, roll up their sleeves, lock the door and not give up until there’s agreement.  But the sad truth is that as a nation, we’re long on attention and short on resolution.

Technology and contemporary media team to ensure the most topics of significance get some spotlight. A thinking person would actually have to expend considerable effort to avoid at least a passing knowledge of the issues. So, the awareness is there. The issues have our attention, yet the solutions somehow remain always out of reach.

Pick your topic: be it the economy, healthcare, energy, Global Warming, or gays in the military, anything of substance will do. Turn on your TV or search the Internet, and you’ll find no shortage of websites, news blasts and talking heads, all of whom “know the real truth,” fully understand the topic, and want you to believe that their way is “the way.” So, with all of this wisdom and expertise, shouldn’t something get resolved . . . every once in awhile?

You’ve got to ask yourself, if the issues are known, understood and routinely given play, why do effective solutions consistently evade us?

Are the issues just too complex? Could it be that those fine folk, who so earnestly try to convince us that they have all the answers, really don’t know? Maybe it’s that, there are just so many answers that we can’t choose . . . or perhaps it’s something entirely different.

I agree that the issues are growing increasingly complex, and I must acknowledge the myriad ways to slice, dice and analyze them all. I’ll even give a nod to those who know more than I about the intricacies involved. But what seems obvious to this observer is that, in the battle for resolution, our enemy is Vested Interest.

The national response to all major issues is metered out based upon how it affects the stakeholders.  This is by design.  It’s as it should be. The problem is that the stakes that are considered are only those of the people who control the engines of change.

This is not to say that those who wield power are corrupt. Unfortunately, looking out for one’s own best interest is among the most basic of human traits. From the dawn of time, people in power have done whatever was necessary to stay in power. It’s no different today. The result is now and always has been the same.

Things don’t change for one reason: people in power don’t want them to — PERIOD.