Giffords is alive today and fighting for her life, the extent of the damage caused by her wound still unknown. There are positive signs, and we can all be thankful for that. But there are 6 people who will never breathe another breath, amongst them a federal judge and a 9 year old girl named Christina Taylor Green.

President Obama, speaking at the memorial services held at the University of Arizona, attempted to call all Americans to a higher principle. He asked us to imagine our democracy through the eyes of a child, to recall the hope and awe it inspired in our own childhoods, to behold it as did Christina Green. The President spoke to the soul of America and shared his vision, “I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it.”

These were moving moments in the shadow of a national tragedy. The President was truly presidential, and for the most part, was recognized as such by pundits of all political persuasions. Even relentless Obama antagonist, Glenn Beck was moved by the speech, saying that “This is probably the best speech he has ever given, and with all sincerity, thank you Mr. President, for becoming the president of the United States of America last night.” But as well received as the President’s solemn call was, the reception was far from all positive.

Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin, who live-blogged the memorial, called it a “bizarre pep rally.” Steve Doocy, of Fox and Friends, said the event “seemed like a political rally.” Both complained about the “Together We Thrive” branding that was labeled by the Red State blog as “the Marxist message behind the memorial.”

Many were the conservative voices who found fault with the President’s speech or were quick to cast him as a “political opportunist,” proving to some degree that it really doesn’t matter what the man does. But the pond scum moment from the right has to be Rush Limbaugh’s criticism of the President for suggesting that American “society is not all together what it should be” and that we have any “duty to live up to” the “dreams and expectations” of a “nine year old little girl who was snuffed out.”

Perhaps Limbaugh and others are to be forgiven for spinning this tragedy for their own gain while accusing the President of doing the same, because that is the way the game is played in 21^st Century America. But the unanimity on the right in denying any potential influence born of the vitriolic rancor that pervades our political discourse is beyond comprehension.

The fact is that Sarah Palin published a map that had gun-sight crosshairs targeted at Gabrielle Giffords. The half-term Alaskan governor who’s famous for saying “Don’t Retreat: Reload,” the woman who announced the map as the “first salvo,” now wants us to believe the symbols were surveyor’ sights. Now, isn’t that just a bit suspicious?

Palin is a key voice in the divisive fear-mongering that plagues our nation. From her “death panel” rhetoric to her narcissistic response to the Tucson tragedy, she has proven repeatedly that she’s a one trick pony with a wafer-thin comprehension of anything beyond the art of whipping up emotions. For Palin or any of her fright-wing allies to deny any culpability whatsoever in events born of the atmosphere of hate and mistrust bred by their self-serving rain of incendiary lies and distortions is patently absurd. It’s akin to shouting fire in a crowded assembly and accepting no responsibility for the toll of the ensuing stampede.

The truth of the matter is that there are consequences of our actions — all of our actions. You can’t shout fire and insulate yourself from the results, neither can you label the opposition as the “enemy,” replete of any redeeming quality and expect to incite anything but hatred. When people like Rush Limbaugh cast all liberals as evil, when the Sharron Angles of our country speak of Second Amendment remedies, when even a clarion call from President Obama for unity in the face of tragedy is labeled “socialist,” a line has been crossed. When people are cast in the same light as the most despicable of villains, charged with “government takeovers” that threaten to bring about Armageddon, when they are washed in hate and labeled with every epithet of the worst of humankind — there are consequences.

Our nation has lost its ability to deal with issues in an intelligent manner because of the polarization brought about by rhetoric so heated that the eventual outcome was guaranteed. The question has long been when, not if, violence would occur. The writing has been on the wall for quite some time, as evidenced by Gabrielle Giffords’ prediction of her own tragic shooting when Palin’s target map first appeared.

Nobody has accused Sarah Palin of causing the shooting in Tucson, and no responsible person would do so. Responsibility for that crime lies with a deranged murderer who sits in an Arizona jail. But Palin, Limbaugh, Bachmann, Beck and all the other voices of division, fear and hatred are responsible for creating an environment where such tragedies are much more likely to occur. There’s really no legitimate debate on the topic. The only real question is will they continue, and if they do, when will the next calamity strike.

Article first published as Why Don’t the Facts Seem to Matter Anymore? on Technorati.

How do Americans make up their minds on political issues? Some, I’m sure, simply echo the positions of trusted friends. There are people who are persuaded by specific arguments that just seem to personally resonate and still others who simply adhere to strict party lines. Such practices are understandable in the fast paced world of 21^st Century America. But understandable or not, one has to wonder if a more deliberate approach might be warranted.

Take for instance the current debate over the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Most polls previously showed that the majority of voters support extending the cuts for only the middle class. But the margins were remarkably thin and continue to shrink.

The most recent Gallup poll shows only 44% of participants in favor of extensions depending upon income level and tallied 40% in support of cuts regardless of income. An Associated Press poll of 1,000 people, taken just before Thanksgiving, showed a slightly larger margin, with 50% in favor of cuts for income up to $250,000 and only 34% favoring cuts for all income.

Division of this sort is typical on political issues, but what’s interesting about these results is that, while only 2% of Americans would benefit directly from cuts on income above $250,000, a third or more of those polled consistently support those very cuts. This is an atypical disparity that surely must have some explanation.

One possible motivation could be that people are concerned about jobs. According to that same AP poll, 82% of participants cited unemployment as an “extremely” or “very” important issue. Perhaps these people believe that extending tax cuts to the wealthy will result in job creation. After all, anyone who’s listened to the media has heard this argument. It’s a favorite of congressional Republicans, who regularly cast any tax increase as “job killing.”

But the fallacy of such a premise is immediately evident in even the briefest moment of serious contemplation. The fact is that employers simply don’t hire based on their personal income tax treatment. The formula for staffing is strictly limited to the number of employees required to produce the product or provide the services necessary to meet demand while maintaining a profit — period. Profits must be made before taxes even come into play. The fundamental rule is that, if demand goes up, businesses must hire more people, and if demand wanes, there will be layoffs.

I’m afraid that while the don’t-tax-the-job-creators line seems to have some legitimacy on the surface, nobody who’s actually studied the issue believes it. Economists are all forced to agree with Cornell University’s Robert Frank, who sums up the present situation with “Businesses aren’t investing because they can already produce more than people want to buy.” Indeed, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) produced a report on the matter and concluded that, of the top 12 suggestions for spurring job creation, income tax cuts was the least effective option.

So, maybe jobs aren’t the primary concern. Could it be that people are moved to support tax cuts, even for millionaires and billionaires, out of a general concern over the economy? The economy was the highest priority issue amongst those voting in the AP poll. A full 90% of participants ranked it at one of the two highest levels of importance.

There has certainly been enough rhetoric flying around about the detrimental effects of raising taxes on anyone to give ample cause for alarm. Republicans are unified on the topic. The new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, voiced this conservative wisdom in an interview last August, “You cannot get the economy going again by raising taxes on those people who we expect to create jobs in America.” It sure sounds good, but once again there’s no evidence and only rare opinion to support the conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that the American economy is driven by consumer spending. To put that in perspective, around 70% of our GDP is generated thusly. So, it’s actually lack of demand that’s the key issue with the American economy today. Too many people are either without jobs and unable to spend or holding onto what money they have because they’re worried about the future. Businesses are flush with cash but aren’t investing for the same reason. They’re not refraining from hiring because they may have to pay more in taxes. They’re not hiring because there’s insufficient demand.

Tax cuts for the top 2% will stimulate the economy, but the sad truth is that pretty much any other practical option would be more effective. Numerous studies have been completed, and virtually all agree that general tax cuts are the least effective form of stimulus, and those applied to the very rich are the worst of the worst. The CBO study mentioned above again rates tax cuts at the bottom of the heap with regard to impact on the GDP, with a best case of returning $0.40 for every dollar invested. Compare that to $1.90 for increasing unemployment aid, and you might glimpse the insanity of the conservative argument.

Although concern over the deficit is also high on everyone’s list, it’s difficult to see how anyone can argue that extending tax cuts that would trim $700 billion from federal revenue could help the deficit. So, if it’s not jobs, and it’s not the economy, what is the explanation for as much as 38% of Americans supporting tax policy from which they will not personally benefit?

There is one other possibility. It could just be that good old American sense of fair play. When asked how they felt the spending cuts and tax increases needed to address the deficit should be applied, the majority (54%) of participants in the AP poll thought they should “Be spread out so that all Americans share evenly in the costs.” A truly admirable position to take.

But then, just what is it that constitutes an even share? It’s hard to believe that there’s any such equity in extending tax cuts that already provided 52.5% of the benefit to the top 5% of taxpayers. The stark truth is that you cannot achieve an “even share” by extending that which is, by design, extremely uneven.

The facts about the Bush tax cuts are dramatic. They were touted to create jobs and stimulate the economy, yet they did neither. With regard to the economy, the Bush era netted the slowest average annual growth since World War II, averaging only 2.39% per year. And that doesn’t even take into account the economic crash of 2008. The next worst period was 1971 to 1980 at 3.21%. On the job front, the results were even worse, with the Bush era producing the slowest rate of average job growth of any cycle since 1945.

In the final analysis, the Bush tax cuts served but one purpose — to accelerate the concentration of wealth in America. Things have now become so lopsided that the top 1% of Americans now have more financial wealth than the bottom 95%. When the portion of wealth held in home equity is discounted, the top 1% holds 48.4 percent of the wealth compared to 20 percent retained by the bottom 95% — and that gap is growing at an alarming rate.

By 2001, the share of financial wealth had already grown to a 39.7% – 32.5% split, but ramped sharply upward under the policies of George W. Bush. The fact is that the wealth of the very rich is being extracted by squeezing the overwhelming majority of Americans to the point of collapse. The situation is so bad today that 23.5% of overall income belongs to that top 1%.

According to Bloomberg, during the period that followed the first of the Bush cuts, up until the financial meltdown, the average annual income of the top 1% grew from $1.08 million to $1.87 million, an increase of 73%. Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bush economic cycle was the first since tracking of the data began in 1967 to produce a decline in median household income — focusing specifically on working-age household data, real incomes dropped by a whopping $2,176.

This is a sad and unethical story, and it’s not representative of the America that most Americans have grown up to love and respect. Our nation was founded on the principles of equality, of shared prosperity and shared burden — principles to which the policies of deregulation and tax cuts for the rich that have dominated the political landscape for the past 30 years are diametrically opposed.

There’s no guesswork here; we already know the outcome of the Bush policies. If the tax cuts are allowed to be extended intact, we will maintain the present trajectory. Poverty will continue to climb; the rich will get much richer, and any balance achieved will be on the backs of the middle class. Make no mistake about it; this is unfair, unethical, immoral, and completely un-American.

Welcome to the real-life tragedy of the commons in America, where the very wealthy have chosen to bleed the country dry, because regardless of the eventual outcome — they will already have their riches. It’s a game of squeeze-all-that-you-can while the squeezing is still possible; it is in essence the great national Ponzi scheme.

America’s economic elite have no interest in reforming the system to achieve sustainability. Our nation, its people and natural resources are nothing more than fodder for the mill of exploitation. And as with any Ponzi scheme, the sustainment of the system matters only to those who have not yet reaped their reward from the extraction.

The American people are the proverbial frogs in the kettle: they continue to support their own demise because they fail to recognize that the heat is still being turned up. If the American middle class is going survive, we will need a 21^st Century awakening. And that awakening must begin with people rejecting the self-serving sound bites of those with their hands on the thermostat.

In the end, the inescapable truth is that, whether the American people choose to recognize the facts or not — the facts do matter. We are presently in a race to the bottom for the vast majority of Americans — and that’s a fact. We can continue this march into oblivion or we can stop the hemorrhaging and restore some semblance of shared prosperity — and that too is a fact. The choice lies with the American people, and the future of our nation depends upon which way they choose — and that’s the most important fact of all.

Well, here I am again posting about being censored at Huffington Post. To say that I’m frustrated would be a serious understatement. As always, when my posts are blocked, I review the text of my comment in search of anything objectionable, make edits and repost. But this occurrence is a bit different.

First, it’s different because this particular story seems to be getting much more stringent review by the censors. When I posted, there were over a hundred comments awaiting approval. Even as I write the post, two days after the story was first published on HuffPost, there are 34 comments in the queue.

The other distinction regarding my presently censored comment is that I’m unable to even guess at what the censor’s objection may be. I would attempt to edit my post, as I’ve done many times in the past, but in this case I cannot for the life of me determine where to start.

The topic of the article is a Rush Limbaugh broadcast where he ridiculed President Obama for his Thanksgiving Day proclamation. This was a popular topic with over 3,300 comments at present. The Limbaugh story covers the conservative talk-radio host’s slamming of the President for, amongst other things, presenting American Indians in a favorable light. In the style of ridiculous hyperbole typical of Limbaugh, he characterizes the true story of Thanksgiving as one of “socialism failed.” He goes on to assert that “Only when we turned capitalists did we have plenty.” Completely devoid of ethics, Limbaugh even uses the occasion to blame Native Americans for the millions who have dies from ling cancer, because it was all “thanks to the Indian-invented custom of smoking tobacco.”

I attempted to post a comment that would bring Limbaugh’s attempt at poisoning the national conversation into the light of a larger context. Personally, I find Limbaugh to be the most objectionable of the fright-wing hate-mongers, and I feel that people need to become aware of the dynamics at play. The following is the full text of the post in which I attempted to bring this into focus:

Rush Limbaugh is symptomatic of a social disease that’s crippling our nation. People are hurting and want people to blame. Unfortunately, that condition provides fertile ground for the unscrupulous.

“They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesman for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”

Sound like anyone you know?

The quote is actually from FDR’s Vice President, Henry Wallace — in 1944. He was talking about the rising tide of fascism in the America.

Fascism was defined in the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary as: “a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”

Sound anything like today’s post Citizens United right-wing?

Wallace also had this to say about Limbaugh: “With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power . . .”

Limbaugh, Beck and the gang at Fox, McConnell, Boehner, Bachmann, Palin — they’re all poisoners of public information who are eating our nation away like a cancer.

Again, I ask for your critique and honest feedback. Is this comment disrespectful? Is it inappropriate? Does it warrant being censored?

And on the general issue of censorship at Huffington Post: is it appropriate for Huffington to censor without feedback as to cause, to leave people to just wonder why they been blocked? Is there some way to get Huffington to listen to their audience and develop objective rules that are consistently applied?

And of course, if you have any thoughts on the substance of the debate . . .

Thanks

Olbermann took on veteran TV newsman Ted Koppel on Monday, saying he and other journalists failed the country during the Iraq War because they were too worried about being objective.

Koppel had criticized the rise of opinionated cable news programming in an essay titled, “Olbermann, O’Reilly and the death of real news,” published Sunday in the Washington Post. Koppel, the former ABC “Nightline” host, said Fox and MSNBC show the world not as it is, but as partisans would like it to be.

David Bauder, AP

Ted Koppel is a pandering fool. He’s correct in asserting that journalists should strive for objectivity, but when such action results in willful acquiescence of known falsehood and deceit, the “journalist” becomes complicit in the wrongdoing. Keith Olbermann and his fellow hosts at MSNBC did not create their shows in a vacuum for the purpose of sensationalism; they were born of the need to balance the unmitigated rubbish that Fox packages as “news” and to refute the unrelenting stream of falsehood that spews from the Fox commentators.

To equate these two agencies and conclude their equivalence is beyond irresponsible. It’s true that both present one-sided commentary that is often exaggerated for effect, but the similarities end there. The premise that this commonality results in equivalence is utterly fallacious — the same reasoning would conclude that because they both used tanks, bombers and battleships, the Allies and the Axis were equivalent.

The fact of the matter is that MSNBC is not equivalent to Fox but rather its antithesis. They are the polar opposite, not only in terms of political position, but more importantly on the continuum of morality. Fox is a propaganda machine with little regard for the truth and a dedication to furthering the cause of corporate power and plutocracy. MSNBC is a countervailing voice with a commitment to the facts and a devotion to the ideals upon which our nation was founded — those silly notions of equality, general welfare, and unity.

Thank God (and Keith) for MSNBC!

This is a different type of blog post for me. It’s born of the frustration encountered at Huffington Post when trying to get a comment approved by their censors. When my posts are blocked, I typically scour the text in search of anything objectionable, make edits to anything that could possibly give cause to censorship, and repost. But in spite of this effort, I’ve had many times in the past when I could not for the life of me determine what their issue was with my post. Today is one such occurrence.

The topic of the article is the new Whitehouse position stated by David Axelrod yesterday regarding the extension of the Bush tax cuts. This was a very popular topic with a huge number of comments of which I posted several.  One particular comment was in response to an individual who posted asking the question, “Why do Democrats act as if the government is the owner of the citizens’ income and can hold a blank check on our earnings?” My response was to assert that we live in a democracy, that the government belongs to us all, and that it’s our only means to “address excesses and exploitation by the upper class.”

A response to my post was given by the person to whom I had commented. That response conveyed certain assertions with which I did not agree and, in my opinion, was based on assumptions that I find to be erroneous. The text of that comment is as follows:

The equality that will happen for ALL AMERICANS under the plan the left has is equal poverty and equal misery.

You cannot reward failure and punish success and increase innovation and the quality of life. It has never worked and will not work if you change the name to “progressive.”

Of course there are differences in intelligence, skills, knowledge, abilities, attitude, willingness to work and other factors. Each and every one of those creates differences in contribution.

In a fair society, you are compensated for your contribution. The liberal idea of equal wealth distribution ignores the differences in contributions and is doomed to fail.

The mistaken belief that government can create equal outcomes is foolish. The result of liberal’s attempts is to bring civilization down to the lowest common denominator. It happens every time you try and create social justice. The only way for liberals to succeed is to punish success and human nature then creates poverty and misery.

I attempted to respond in a respectful way, but even after a series of earnest attempts at editing was unable to get the Huffington censors to accept my post. The following is the text of my last attempt:

“reward failure and punish success” Success and failure at what? To make money? Now, there’s an appropriate metric with which to measure the worth of a person. It’s actually the core flaw in conservative thinking and the source of much suffering in the world.

“increase innovation” That’s just patent falsehood. Our ruling class system retards innovation in order to sustain the status quo. Just look at energy consumption and infrastructure in the U.S.. We’re still married to fossil fuels at the cost of the people and planet because it serves the needs of those stuffing their pockets with oil money. Innovation is in green technologies and alternatives, which are suppressed because of the threat of competition.

“In a fair society, you are compensated for your contribution” So CEOs really contribute 300 times more than average workers? By what measure? It’s the conservative idea of distribution of wealth that ignores all factors of contribution except monetary. Is that moral?

“The result of liberal’s attempts is to bring civilization down to the lowest common denominator.” Quite to the contrary – it’s the conservative ideals that are base, that focus on the worst characteristics of humanity.

For conservatives to succeed, the majority of people, as well as the planet itself must pay the price. John Kenneth Galbraith best summed up the conservative ethic: “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

I ask for your critique and honest feedback. Is this comment disrespectful? Is it inappropriate as a response to the comment that preceded it? Does it warrant being censored? Is it appropriate for Huffington Post to censor without feedback as to cause?

And on substance: what are your thoughts on the debate?

Education Nation, NBC’s weeklong look at education in America, kicked off Sunday with a Teachers Town Hall. Involving a live audience of a few hundred and another 6,000 logged in online, the meeting provided a forum for teachers and others to voice their opinions on the issues affecting education. Many shared their private experiences and perspectives in an open dialog looking at everything from teacher recruitment and retention to tenure, charter schools, global competition and parental involvement.

The Town Hall event comes on the heels of the release of the documentary, “Waiting for Superman,” which many argued places teachers in an undeserved bad light. Several people voiced the opinion that teachers are being unfairly attacked, that they were being made the scapegoats for the growing shortcomings of our education system. Most topics enjoyed shared support from the crowd and guests on stage, but tenure stood out as a single point of contention. Even amongst teachers, the debate over tenure revealed some who argued that it protected “bad” teachers and others who strongly disagreed.

If the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is any indication, most Americans seem to agree that, regardless of tenure, teachers aren’t the major problem with education. While 58% of those polled believe that education needs either a “major change” or “complete overhaul,” only 30% cited teachers as part of the problem. And the only group that a majority of people, 53%, identified as part of the problem was elected officials, with parents next highest on the list at 50%.

Regardless of who’s to blame, there are few who believe that the system doesn’t need reform. Asked to assign letter grades to the system, only 19% of those surveyed would give either an A or B. This is good news in that the American public seems to have a fairly good handle on the topic. Of course, it’s also bad news, since they’re correct. The U.S. now ranks 24^th amongst the 37 Organization for Economic Coordination and Development (OECD) nations in mathematics, 21^st in science and 15^th in literacy. As many in the education community are inclined to state, “the system is failing our children.”

But is it accurate to label a system that only graduates 68.8% of its students as merely “failing our children?” Not to downplay the significance of such a statement, but holding the problem in such a perspective is more than a little limiting, and may actually provide a window into certain important aspects of the problem. To suggest that the impact of the failure is isolated to students is to misrepresent the true customer of education and to minimize its destructive effects upon the nation.

In the United States, between the federal, state and local governments, over $1 trillion will be spent on education this year. That’s around 7% of our GDP, which is enough to rank #2 amongst the OECD nations, second only to Iceland.  For a moment, forget the question of whether or not Americans are getting their money’s worth, the point is that education accounts for more public spending than any other category, except healthcare — even more than defense. The customer of the American education system is not the students; it’s the American taxpayers.

The attitude that public education is intended to serve the students fails to recognize the importance of an educated populace. Countries don’t invest in education because of some moral imperative directed toward student wellbeing; they do so because it’s an absolutely essential part of building and maintaining a strong and prosperous nation. To the extent that an education system is effective at producing capable and knowledgeable graduates, it’s also effective at providing the labor resource for a high-performing economy and the intellectual engine for technological progress, while simultaneously minimizing the cost of social programs, law enforcement and corrections.

The American education system has failed the children, but more importantly, it has failed America. Never mind our international rankings. They provide a decent relative measure, but the impact is felt right here at home. The impact is fewer graduates capable of designing tomorrow’s technology; it means fewer science papers and patents originating in the U.S.; the result is a labor force increasingly incapable of competing on a global basis, and the tragic side effects are more unproductive Americans, higher crime rates, more drag on available social programs and an increased sense of futility.

Explanations for the failures of the system are many and varied, and the suggestions for remedy are limited only by the number of experts chiming in. But the core issue is that the system is in need of structural change, and as is the case with our nation’s energy infrastructure, the vested interests will fight against any reform that may dilute their voice or adversely impact their pocketbooks.

The truth of the matter is that the American education system was designed during the Industrial Revolution with the specific goal of producing factory workers. The primary objective of the system was not to promote the creativity necessary in the 21^st Century, but to produce a crop of docile workers who would accept the dominance of the factory system. The schools were designed like factories, the students treated like raw materials, and the finished product was a labor force where few graduates went on to college.

Our system is providing exactly what it was designed to produce. In order to effect real change, the entire system must be rethought, and learning must be the central focus. Alternative forms of education need to be evaluated and systems implemented where the incremental costs of additional students are minimized. Teaching resources need to be expanded to include peers and professionals. Systems that effectively deal with teacher evaluation and development, disadvantaged students, operating efficiencies, measuring student performance, and fully leveraging technology must all be established.

In short, the American education system needs to be redesigned from the ground up with the needs of the nation in the new millennium driving the process. The power of any nation is derived from its people, and the power of the people is derived from their education. There is no more important endeavor for the future of our nation than to optimize our educational system and invest in the citizens of tomorrow.

Next: American Education — the Path Forward.

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.

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.