Rand Paul and the Mosque

On Monday, the Marion County Line blog published a quick reaction from the Rand Paul campaign about the Lower Manhattan mosque hullaballoo:

Dr. Rand Paul's new spokesperson, Gary Howard, sent us this quick note:

We are focused on this race and the issues affecting Kentucky. We don't want New York intervening in our local Kentucky issues, and we don't look to interfere with New York's local issues.

So Paul was refusing to weigh in, on grounds of jurisdictional principle and relevant-issues focus? Not by mid-week, no. Here he is being interviewed by Liberty Maven:

LM: Recently, Senator Harry Reid came out against the plan to build a mosque near the site of the September 11th attacks. Given he is in a difficult campaign race it is hard to say if his opinion is for political reasons. Are you for or against building of the mosque? Do you consider it a property rights issue and/or religious freedom issue?

Rand Paul: While this is a local matter that will be decided by the people of New York, I do not support a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero. In my opinion, the Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th.

Similar "doesn't support" comments to Bowling Green's WBKO were interpreted into an "Rand Paul Opposes Ground Zero Mosque" headline in The Huffington Post (if you think that's hair-splitting–and you may be right!–ponder the difference between "doesn't like" and "dislike"). Paul also tells a similar story to The Daily Caller:

"I'm not sure I think the federal government should weigh in on it," he said. "I think it's probably a mistake for the president to be weighing in on favor of it as well."

If the goal of the building's organizers is to reconcile, Paul thinks there's a better way to do that. "I think reconciliation is best promoted by — instead of having a multi-million dollar mosque — maybe having a multi-million dollar donation to the memorial site, would be better for all."

Click on all of those interviews for extended commentary on stuff actually relevant to senatorial work. For instance, in The Daily Caller:

He said both parties — and not just the Democrats — will have to admit that they've contributed to the deficit. "I think you can work across the aisle if you're honest about those things, the shortcomings of your party, and make things less about the party and more about the issue, I think you can work across the party line."

Republicans will have to get past not wanting to cut defense expenditures, he said, and Democrats will have to get past wanting to cut non-defense expenditures. "If you're serious about addressing it...the only way a serious person can do it is look across the entire length and breath of the budget."

Related: "Mosque debate strains tea party, GOP" (Politico), and "The Trouble With Ideology" (The American Prospect).

Reason on Rand Paul here, on the mosque here. Links via Doug Mataconis.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Law Student||

    Shoulda stuck with the first answer.

  • Hank||

    "Paul" and "mosque" in the same headline! I hope the Reason servers can take it.

  • Yearning to Breathe Free||

    Reason's gonna go blind from all this Mosquerbating.

  • Joe M||

    Whew, thanks for the mosque update. It had been a few hours.

  • DG||

    OK, I'm sure Reason is just milking this story for the site hits at this point. Is every other thread going to be mosque related today?

  • ||

    Pretty much. They used to do the same thing with Palin.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    This is one of the only mosque posts without Palin.

  • ||

    For what it's worth, this post is really about Paul, not the mosque.

  • ||

    And Paul, unlike Gingrich and Palin, is actually running for office. So it does kind of matter what he thinks.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Only if you can vote for him.

  • __||

    Which some people reading this blog can.

    It's also relevant as there had been some belief that Rand Paul's popularity offered a shred of hope to the readers of this blog.

    It turns out, it does not.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I know I can't, and being the selfish bastard I am I couldn't give two shits about how it affects the 2 people from Kentucky on hit'n'run (there are 8 of us total). And don't say hypothetically if Rand eventually had a shot at the presidency that it could affect me, because the second he comes within 14 miles of thinking about considering dipping his toes in the primary pool, that Civil Rights bullshit is coming right out of the closet.

    In the end, he either believes the bullshit he is trying to sell, or he is selling out to get elected. Both situations are terrible, but if he reverts to full-blown Libertarian mode in case of the latter upon election, then maybe he can cut a budget somewhere before some union thugs shoot him in the street. You've got to love Democracy. It's good because "most people" like it. Just like American Idol, Hair Metal in the 80s, and the War on Drugs circa its inception.

  • Tom||

    Yeah. Where's the Dr. Laura coverage?

  • Old Bull Lee||

    It troubles me that "ideology" has become such a negative term. We should demand the people we elect have a clear ideology they'll stand for. It's supposed to be a good thing when someone has ideas and principles.

    If politicians set aside all their ideology, all you have left is special interest and constituency promises/handouts, otherwise politicians would be (or are) exactly the same.

  • ||

    "I do not support a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  • ||

    "the Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th"

    Ugh. Rand Paul gets more weaselly every day. Does he really crave power that badly?

  • ||

    All politicians will break your heart in the end.

  • ||

    On the other hand, he did renounce his alleged libertarian credentials, so succumbing to the most vile sort of racism (collective guilt) is in keeping with mainstream American thought regarding 9/11, at least according to the polls, which are never wrong.

  • Leroy||

    Do you disagree with that statement sunshine?

    Do you think that building a mosque that (rightly or not) offends the sensibilities of many Americans is a better way to build dialog than a significant contribution to the memorial fund would be?

  • ||

    Yes. Contribution to a memorial fund is probably a waste of money. Who's managing the "fund"? Who are the beneficiaries? Why should someone who isn't responsible for 9/11 be extorted into contributing money into a fund?

  • Leroy||

    Who's extorting?

  • ||

    Do you really think memorials are going to solve this problem?

  • Leroy||

    No. I think this 'problem' is ludicrous in general. That did not answer the question.

  • Rhywun||

    I would rank "offending delicate sensibilities" far, far above "throwing dollars into a memorial money-pit" as a means of getting people to talk about the issue. Maybe 1% of them will come away more enlightened. Which is 100% more than a "memorial" can do.

  • ||

    ""I would rank "offending delicate sensibilities" far, far above "throwing dollars into a memorial money-pit" as a means of getting people to talk about the issue.""

    Offending delicate sensibilites. I've rallied against political correctness too long to support the notion that we can't offend them.

  • :)||

    Who cares if it builds dialog or not? The fact is, they have the right to build there, and yours or anyone's emotional qualms are not a claim.

  • Leroy||

    Please do not attribute a position to me that I have not claimed. It would seem a fairly reasonable position to feel that due to the tensions this project has created, that if the purpose is to build dialog and understanding, the money could be better spent.

    And again, they have the right to build there, and people have the right to think that there are better ways to achieve their stated goals.

  • ||

    Nobody is talking about the "right" to build there.

    We are talking about whether it's a good idea, if you want to improve relations.

    In that sense it's obiviously not.

  • ||

    Nobody is talking about the "right" to build there.

    We are talking about whether it's a good idea, if you want to improve relations.

    In that sense it's obiviously not.

  • zoltan||

    Meh, improving relations with bigots and sensitive morons isn't a good thing.

  • Tom||

    Improving relations is a two-way street.

  • ||

    Do you think that building a mosque...is a better way to build dialog than a significant contribution to the memorial fund would be?

    False choice. I resent Paul's implication that Americans Muslims must do penance by contributing to a 9/11 fund. Such a position resorts to the racist notion of collective guilt. We as Americans should have gotten beyond that by now.

  • Leroy||

    "If the goal of the building's organizers is to reconcile, Paul thinks there's a better way to do that."

    So what do you say to the people building the mosque who have made 'reconciliation' a goal of their project?

    Funny thing about if-then statements is the if part... It must be confirmed for the then part to matter.

  • ||

    So what do you say to the people building the mosque who have made 'reconciliation' a goal of their project?

    I don't say anything to them. It's their property and they can say what they want. If their press releases contain concessions to the "feelings" of nativist New Yorkers, I'd call it a tactical error, a compromise. Such language succeeds only in obfuscating the core principles at stake.

  • Leroy||

    So let me restate your position, to make sure I understand it clearly -

    The builders of the mosque have stated one of their purposes is reconciliation. Rand Paul says that if that is their purpose, he believes they can more effectively achieve that goal by other means, since it is obvious the mosque project has been divisive.

    Where is the problem in this? Rand Paul did not come out of the blue and say 'All muslims should pay reconciliation', but simply said that if reconciliation is your goal, this may not be the best way to achieve it.

  • Woodrow||

    Lefties care so much about reconciliation, as long as its not with white and/or conservative people.

  • Leroy||

    So let me restate your position, to make sure I understand it clearly -

    The builders of the mosque have stated one of their purposes is reconciliation. Rand Paul says that if that is their purpose, he believes they can more effectively achieve that goal by other means, since it is obvious the mosque project has been divisive.

    Where is the problem in this? Rand Paul did not come out of the blue and say 'All muslims should pay reconciliation', but simply said that if reconciliation is your goal, this may not be the best way to achieve it.

  • zoltan||

    I wish everyone would "reconcile" with me and throw a bunch of money in my face!

  • ||

    Rand Paul did not come out of the blue and say 'All muslims should pay reconciliation', but simply said that if reconciliation is your goal, this may not be the best way to achieve it.

    Nice try, but that's not what he said. He said: "[T]he Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th." He didn't say "builders of the mosque" should donate money to a fund. He said the "Muslim community" should do so, implying collective guilt. I can't make it more clear than that.

  • ||

    But to your point about "reconciliation," Paul seems to be putting words in the mosque-builders mouths. As I noted above, that might be one of their stated motives (as a PR tactic), but it isn't the primary motivation for building their community center/mosque/swimming pool. And it's their money and property. Who is Rand Paul to say how they should spend it? His is the language of a panderer, a wimp.

  • Leroy||

    Ah, so when the mosques directors say one goal is 'reconciliation' its a PR tactic, but when Rand Paul says this could be better achieved another way he's assigning collective guilt.

    Ok, now I get it.

  • Leroy||

    "If the goal of the building's organizers is to reconcile, Paul thinks there's a better way to do that. "I think reconciliation is best promoted by — instead of having a multi-million dollar mosque — maybe having a multi-million dollar donation to the memorial site, would be better for all.""

    The conditional statement at the beginning of this seems to be getting ignored.

    ""If the goal of the building's organizers is to reconcile"

    You see, this means that any statement made after this, relies on this condition being met. I don't think it can be much clearer. IF the purpose of the mosque is reconciliation THEN the millions of dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

    He implied a collective nothing.

  • ||

    Rand, I am disappoint.

  • Isaac's 3rd grade teacher||

    Me too.

  • 3rd grade teacher's internet||

    Me three.

  • 3rd rate internet||

    Could not find page.

  • Oso Politico||

    Rand is really Ron Paul's love child by Ann Coulter.

  • Terrorific||

    I NEVER liked this guy. He's clearly full of it, and is about as close to the average Republican as you can get.

    Total weasel.

  • Leroy||

    Rand Paul does not support the mosque?

    The only logical conclusion is that he is a bigot.

  • Fluffy||

    It's either that, or he's pandering.

    My money's still on pandering at this point.

  • Leroy||

    You can reasonably think its not a good idea to build the mosque there, and not be a bigot.

    Is it really unreasonable to think 'This idea upsets a lot of people. While they are within their rights to do it, it may not be the best idea'?

    This does not make someone a bigot.

  • Fluffy||

    Ummmm...that's the pandering choice.

    I said either bigotry or pandering.

    Indulging people in unreasonable emotions is...(insert word here).

  • Spock||

    All emotions are unreasonable.

  • ||

    I saw a cartoon once, I think it was an Addams. It was Christmas, there was snow and a couple was walking along the street gazing at some lit up demonic figures on a lawn. The caption read, "I don't think the new neighbors are presbyterians."

    I thought it was amazing. So amazing, in fact, that I wanted something like it.

    Being a sculptor, and an effects artist, and utterly batshit insane, I came up with the idea for a Satanic Nativity scene. It would have a leering, aroused Satan, the Whore of Babylon, various Beasts of Revelation, some vile, yet cherubic flying demons, and they'd all be looking down at a larvaesque Antichrist. I figured I'd attempt it in clay first and work my way to that blown plastic that regular nativity scenes are made from. My family and friends thought it was vile, but that it might make an interesting Halloween decoration. When I said that I would be using it for Christmas they were aghast.

    Eventually, I was dissuaded from my plan due to my loved ones pointing out that my creche could get the house burned down.

    Bigoted or pandering?

  • Leroy||

    According to many posters on here -

    Your family is bigoted, and you are pandering to their interests, asshole.

  • Leroy||

    "If the goal of the building's organizers is to reconcile, Paul thinks there's a better way to do that."

    Now bear with me for a second here... if the goal of the project is to reconcile differences, and the project itself is creating division and tension, wouldn't the project be conflicting with its own goals?

    So how is it unreasonable for someone with no interest in the project at all, to look at the goals stated and the current situation, and come to the logical conclusion that this project is not in the best interest of the 'reconciliation' desired by the projects organizers?

    I don't see how this position is pandering to anyone.

  • ||

    Scrupulous individuals rarely run for public office. Those who do are usually defeated or, if they win, are corrupted by the process.

  • Tim||

    Mosque mosque mosque mosque mosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosquemosque

    and

    mosque.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'll mosque you, format breaker. You know who else put horizontal scrollbars everywhere?

  • Tim||

    Just thinking outside the box.

  • ♥♥♥||

    Booooooooooooooooooooooo!

  • ||

    What mosque? Somebody wants to build a mosque near the 9/11 site?

    Who knew?

  • ||

    In my opinion, the Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th.

    What a stupid and disappointing statement. What responsibility does "the Muslim community" bear for 9/11? Is Paul aware that Muslims also died in the twin towers? This idiotic belief in collective guilt is what leads people to claim that "white people" owe blacks reparations. What's next Rand, should the "Catholic community" create a fund for sexually abused children? Maybe you'd like the "Jewish community" to repay Madoff victims? This is sickening stuff from a so-called "libertarian."

  • Mohamed Atta||

    Peter is right you know. Muslims lost their lives too that day. There is one big difference: Muslims ended up in paradise with a bunch of virgins and infidels burned in the tower AND in hell.

  • Fluffy||

    The Catholics think the same thing about that day's dead.

    As do the Baptists.

    And every fucking other bunch of theist dingbats out there, except for a handful of syncretists.

  • Mohamed Atta||

    So, let me get this straight, I could have ended up with the same amount of virgins if I was Catholic? You mean virgin Catholic school boys? I don't think so. Sorry, Muslims don't engage in queerism - just ask Ahmadinejad.

  • Yearning to Breathe Free||

    I have always suspected that the majority of suicide bombers (including the 9/11 guys) were gay. They just have a strange way of dealing with it.

  • FOX News||

    They're "homicide bombers," infidel.

  • ||

    not homocide bombers?

  • Fluffy||

    Since the Catholics do not choose to describe the actual experience of paradise, I am forced to conclude that it involves choir boys and crying and secrets.

  • ||

    Didn't Twain make a point about this--that what little is described in the bible about heaven is basically eternal Church, singing hymns to the glory of god for all eternity?

  • ||

    Peter A, the people who want to build the mosque claim that they want to do so to promote healing and reconciliation and understanding and so on. Rand Paul is responding to that, not introducing the concept of collective guilt.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Does failing to support a mosque two blocks from the WTC equate, automatically, to wanting to strip Muslims of their freedom to worship?

  • ||

    I don't like people who use the words "healing process", just on general principle.

  • Tim||

    Try opening a dialogue.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Or "reaching out." Fuck I hate that phrase.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    How about "touching base"?

  • ||

    Regardless, at the end of the day there will be pushback.

  • ♥♥♥||

    I need some positive feedback from you.

  • Brett L||

    You're obviously a bigot if you don't think Park 51 is the best idea since Medicare.

  • ||

    Medicare isn't exactly a high bar to clear.

  • :)||

    racist

  • Fitzroy||

    So he's implying that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 and should give donations as a "sorry". Yea, way to stick up for the individual against the collective.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Obviously he is basing his statement on the raging success of that fund that all Christians have sent money to, the reconciliation fund for victims of the pedophiles in the Catholic church.

  • Fluffy||

    This is a pretty dickish move.

    If you're brave enough to say that property rights should have trumped the Civil Rights Act, you should be brave enough to say that property rights trump the sensibilities of people who think all Muslims are responsible for 9/11.

    The only reason that I'm not totally writing this guy off is because he may be deliberately avoiding talking about property rights issues precisely because he's still playing dead to let the Civil Rights stuff die down.

    It's pretty clear now that he thinks he can just run out the clock and win the seat if he can keep that issue out of the news.

    Still a dick move, though.

  • ||

    When you parse his comments, his punting of it as a "local matter" reflects a surprisingly lackadaisical attitude to regulating the mosque out of existence. I'm actually somewhat surprised by that tack. You can easily express both a property rights view in support of, and a moral opinion against, in the same statement. He did not do that. Sux.

  • Corduroy||

    Agreed.

    But in my mind it was a perfect opportunity to say something about property rights and it was wasted. Besides, it comes off as a big middle finger to any libertarian voters out there.

  • ||

    Besides, it comes off as a big middle finger to any libertarian voters out there.

    All nine of us are livid.

  • Tim||

    (shrieks): I don't like mosque!

  • robc||

    As a libertarian voter in KY, I dont see it. What middle finger. He made it very clear that their is not federal power to prevent the mosque. He just doesnt think its a good idea.

    There are lots of things I dont think are a good idea that the federal government doesnt have any power to prevent.

  • ||

    He strongly implied that there is local majoritarian authority to prevent the mosque.

  • robc||

    He strongly implied its none of his damn business whether there is local majoritarian authority to prevent the mosque.

  • ||

    Well that's true isn't it. The city defintely could deny the permit.

  • Leroy||

    It does not matter that the system of rules and regulations in place could potentially stop a project like this from going forward. What matters is that Rand Paul made a remark that reveals this fact to the public, while taking no personal position on the issue, so he is a bigot and must be against property rights.

    Duh.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    So he is supposed to turn the whole thing into a a principled stand against zoning? Then he could join Badnarik in the "no drivers license" club. He'd be sure to get elected then.

  • ||

    Yep. Dick move for sure.

  • ||

    In my opinion, the Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th.

    STFU

  • ||

    "I think reconciliation is best promoted by — instead of having a multi-million dollar mosque — maybe having a multi-million dollar donation to the memorial site, would be better for all."

    See above.

  • ||

    If you're brave enough to say that property rights should have trumped the Civil Rights Act, you should be brave enough to say that property rights trump the sensibilities of people who think all Muslims are responsible for 9/11.

    I think he's just taking the line that they have the right to build it there, but its probably not the smartest thing to do. Which is perfectly consistent with saying that property rights trump both the CRA and people's (hyper-)sensitivities. On the whole, though, his "make a contribution" line blows.

    You'd think people claiming to be all about increasing peace and harmony would be having some second thoughts about driving ahead with a project that is proving divisive and inflammatory.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • ||

    So, of course, the bullies win. Yay for extortionary practices!

  • Leroy||

    protesting = extortion

    Got it.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    It does when they start saying "You know, it'd be a shame if Joe Bob Retard came up here and shot the place up. The same Joe Bob Retard we pander to on an hourly basis." Change some words around and rename Joe Bob as Salvatore and it sounds like the fricking mafia.

  • Fluffy||

    Maybe that's his line, but he doesn't actually say that.

    The question is phrased as a specific request for him to comment on the property rights and freedom of religion elements of the debate, and he pointedly refuses to do so.

    We're both inferring that he would support their property rights from his previous statements and other positions, but he had the chance to say it and deliberately refused to do so.

  • ||

    "While this is a local matter that will be decided by the people of New York"

    Decided by the "people of New York" not the owners of the property. Isn't that an endorsement of the right of the government of New York to stop it from being built if it chose to? I don't see how it is not.

  • ||

    The "people" can discriminate against Muslims, but cannot stop discrimination against blacks.

  • ||

    Good point, John.

  • ||

    He may not have thought it through that much when he said it. He may not mean that even though that is literally what he said.

    But since he not running for the zoning commission of New York, I don't really see why anyone cares what he thinks about this.

  • Law Student||

    John |8.18.10 @ 10:12AM|#

    And Paul, unlike Gingrich and Palin, is actually running for office. So it does kind of matter what he thinks.

  • Law Student||

    Not trying to be a dick I just thought it was humorous. Personally I don't see why anybody but the site's immediate neighbors should care at all about this.

  • Spock||

    Personally I don't see why anybody but the site's immediate neighbors should care at all about this.

    Ditto. And even they shouldnt have any power to stop it.

  • ||

    Good catch. I see where it is more important what Paul thinks than what Palin or Gingrich think. But in the end, I don't see how this makes you want to not vote for the guy if you like his other positions. He won't be deciding many Mosque land use issues in the Senate.

  • Law Student||

    If I lived in Kentucky I would vote for him because I'm hoping that his inner Aqua Buddha will come out when he gets elected. He would still be the most libertarian senator by a long shot.

  • robc||

    Its a bit more federalist than libertarian AT THE WORST POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION.

    As Im both, I dont have much problem with his statement. What little power the government has should be as local as reasonably possible.

  • Fluffy||

    I read this answer as "Empty Federalism Syllables Designed To Make Question Go Away".

    That might be too charitable of me, though - you're right.

  • ||

    As RobC said above. It is a good federalist answer. He may object to zoning laws but fully admit that New York has a right to have them if they chose to do so.

  • robc||

    Or even more so, he refuses to comment on whether NY has the right to have them.

  • robc||

    EFSDTMQGA

    I think you are on to something.

  • ||

    You'd think people claiming to be all about increasing peace and harmony would be having some second thoughts about driving ahead with a project that is proving divisive and inflammatory.

    Every building or development project in NYC can be divisive and inflammatory. That's just part of how diverse NYC is. There will ALWAYS be somebody incensed.

  • Rhywun||

    At this point I'm in favor of the thing because of the division and the "hurt sensibilities". Backing down now will just mean the bigots and tribalists win.

  • ||

    ""You'd think people claiming to be all about increasing peace and harmony would be having some second thoughts about driving ahead with a project that is proving divisive and inflammatory.""

    Kinda like civil rights in the 60s.

  • zoltan||

    Just because something is divisive and inflammatory doesn't make it wrong. Those who are "inflamed" tend to be the bigots. What other reason is there to be inflamed about?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Yo! How about covering something actually interesting?

  • ||

    Gee if a child won't sit down or pay attention, maybe he is just a child or a just little that whom his parents haven't paid enough attention to. But hey is it easier to just dope him up than you know raise him or anything.

  • Corduroy||

    Falls under the "No Sh*t, Sherlock" category. I think Reason should have one every day.

    Let's see, what else could possibly be contributing to behavior problems?

    staying up too late and/or not enough sleep?
    a crappy diet primarily consisting of Mountain Dew and Wonder Bread?
    not enough exercise or time just spent outdoors playing with a stick?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    You forgot "being a boy."

  • ||

    It really burns my nuts that divergences from the norm are "disorders" and "diseases". Fuck that, and fuck the norm. If there's not an obvious genetic/viral/bacterial/etc. marker that makes it clear that something's highly unusual, I don't want to hear about it as a fucking disease or disorder.

  • Fluffy||

    I actually think they should put Ritalin in the water along with the flouride.

    The debate over Ritalin is warped by the way American medicine treats all "drugs" as responses to "disorders". In order to take a beneficial "drug", you have to contrive a diagnosis for a "disorder" to go with it.

    Ritalin is not an opiate. It's not "doping people up". It's a stimulant that acts as a cognitive enhancer. In the vernacular, it makes you smarter. [This is an oversimplification, but it's close enough.] Smarter kids find is easier to concentrate on one task at a time, and this helps them sit still.

    The anti-Ritalin hysteria is driven by the fact that people think it's like sticking their kid in an opium den. It's actually much more like giving their weightlifter kid steroids - but without the toxic side effects.

    So pump the little bastards full of the stuff, I say. When kids at MIT are stealing the shit to do better in class, I don't really see the downside of giving it to anyone else.*

    *Insert standard libertarian disclaimer about Medicaid.

  • ||

    snarkiest comment EVAH! thanks!

  • Tim||

    Wife: Have you got anything without mosque?

    Waitress: Well, there's mosque egg sausage and mosque, that's not got much mosque in it.

    Wife: I don't want ANY mosque!

    Man: Why can't she have egg bacon mosque and sausage?

    Wife: THAT'S got mosque in it!

    Man: Hasn't got as much mosque in it as mosque egg sausage and mosque, has it?

    Vikings: mosque mosque mosque mosque(crescendo through next few lines)

    Wife: Could you do the egg bacon mosque and sausage without the mosque then?

    Waitress: Urgghh!

  • :)||

    You win

  • ||

    Nice.

  • ||

    +1

  • David||

    Bloody Vikings.

  • ¢||

    Yo! How about covering something actually interesting?

    Get Palin or Paul to take a side on that, and they'll take the other one. Seven thousand times.

    Until then, no story.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Can we get Paul to weigh in on Newt Gingrich's suggestion that Congress, the New York attorney general, and the city of New York should step in and block construction?

  • ||

    You'd think people claiming to be all about increasing peace and harmony would be having some second thoughts about driving ahead with a project that is proving divisive and inflammatory.

    99% of these a-holes experienced 9/11 through a newsloop on CNN, and now they want to bitch and moan about what and what isn't appropriate for the people who actually experienced 9/11. Thanks, but no thanks.

  • ||

    Weren't most of the people objecting in New York and the ones who showed up at the hearing families of victims and fireman and that sort of thing?

  • ||

    As far as I know, this controversy was manufactured outside of NY. The families of victims would have never known about this if it weren't for the drummed up controversy.

  • ||

    But they still object to it. Who cares who told them.

  • ||

    John, I see now that you said "weren't most of the people objecting in New York families of victims." Yes. These are the same families that object to a memorial to 9/11 victims, and basically anything that rebuilds lower Manhattan rather than turning it into a national cemetery.

  • mr simple||

    Who cares what they think? People have to deal with loss everyday and they rarely do it rationally. Look, I feel bad for them, really, but why do they have any power over the people's property?

  • zoltan||

    I really don't care what these victims object to. They are emotionally scarred and not thinking rationally. Most of them probably have an involuntary fear of all Muslims anyway.

  • ||

    Also, John, I think they are being used by outside actors to make their cause seem more "local".

  • ||

    I stil think that dude is one major tool!

    Lou
    www.be-anonymous.se.tc

  • Tom||

    The spambot got it right for once.

  • ||

    This subject is designed to distract and divide. You're all taking your eyes off the ball. The country is going broke and fedgov is sweeping up the last bits of the constitutional system and here we are focused on this pr stunt designed by neocons and leftist media. Who fucking cares how Rand parses this sucker. He will cleave more closely to the constitution than anyone currently in the senate. (also just want to note that I have many Muslim friends and and that I lost a couple friends and colleagues on sept 11, an that I have had many nights at the Dakota Roadhouse, next store to potential mosque site.....and I don't this story still means nothing. Get to work restoring the republic!)

  • ||

    Ahh, but did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

  • Bingo||

    This country is so fucked.

  • ||

    All those spineless politicians who haven't yet stepped onto this landmine can remain silent (very difficult for a politician) or simply reply, when asked, "I believe in property rights and the First Amendment." But no. They open their mouths and blow off their legs. It's really quite funny, but it does serve to separate those who really do believe in the Constitution from those who merely pay lip service to it.

  • ||

    Fuck the families of the victims; fuck every one of them.

    If the professional weepers and wailers don't want an evil Mooslam community center, or mosque ("eeeeeeek!") or whateverthefuckitis, let them get their checkbooks out and buy the property.

    As far as that goes, unless they buy "Ground Zero" they can STFU about what happens there, too.

  • ||

    ""Fuck the families of the victims; fuck every one of them.""

    They have supported every anti-terrorist tool the government put forth. To them, no civil right, nor constitutional right is greater than their lost loved ones.

  • ||

    The families of the dead believe they have a right--by virtue of their eternal suffering--to special privileges and emotional as well as financial (see H.R. 847) support from the rest of us, forever and ever. They have a vested interest in all the "Ground Zero" imagery and propaganda. Their personal tragedies are real, but they should grow up and move on and stop behaving like indignant welfare queens.

  • mr simple||

    Thank you, I thought I might be the only one thinking this. It's like no one else has ever lost a relative or something. It was a tragic event, but move on already.

  • Tom||

    P Brooks, I want to bear your children.

  • T||

    So, because I'm basically bored stiff of this topic now, I'm going to go off on a tangent.

    One of my old books (Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary, available free lots of places online) constantly refers to Muslims as "Musselman". While it makes me think of some hideous bivalve human crossbreed, is it considered rude to use that to refer to the followers of Islam? Or is it just obsolete?

  • ||

    Musulman (Persian: مسلمان, also rendered as Musalman) is a synonym for Muslim. The term is modified from Arabic. It is the origin of the Spanish word musulmán (used for a Muslim).[1] In English it has become an archaic usage.

    In addition to Spanish, Persian, Arabic, and the Persian dialect Dari, it is also found in Kurdish, Pashto, Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Punjabi, Portuguese, Turkish, Azeri, Maltese, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, French and Dutch.
  • T||

    So simply archaic? I think I'm going to start using it, just for grins.

  • ||

    Yes. "Musselman" is apparently just the English spelling variant of "Musulman."

  • T||

    My lazy and cursory Google search showed it's also a last name. So there's people out there whose last name means Muslim, which amuses me.

    Or they're descended from hideous half-oyster creatures. Your call.

  • ||

    wonder what my friend mary christian thinks about this?

  • zoltan||

    I like Mohammedan myself. Sounds like a type of camel.

  • alan||

    Makes me think of Kipling for some reason, 'pip, pip', corduroy, elephant guns, bar handle mustaches and all of that.

  • alan||

    Would not be complete without this. quite flawed he was but his dark humor was first rate:

    THE YOUNG BRITISH SOLDIER

    When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
    'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
    An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
    Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
    Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
    Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
    Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
    So-oldier ~OF~ the Queen!

    Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day,
    You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay,
    An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
    A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
    Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .

    First mind you steer clear o' the grog-sellers' huts,
    For they sell you Fixed Bay'nets that rots out your guts --
    Ay, drink that 'ud eat the live steel from your butts --
    An' it's bad for the young British soldier.
    Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . .

    When the cholera comes -- as it will past a doubt --
    Keep out of the wet and don't go on the shout,
    For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
    An' it crumples the young British soldier.
    Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .

    But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead:
    You ~must~ wear your 'elmet for all that is said:
    If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead,
    An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
    Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .

    If you're cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
    Don't grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
    Be handy and civil, and then you will find
    That it's beer for the young British soldier.
    Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . .

    Now, if you must marry, take care she is old --
    A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told,
    For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
    Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
    'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . .

    If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
    To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
    Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both,
    An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
    Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .

    When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
    Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
    Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
    And march to your front like a soldier.
    Front, front, front like a soldier . . .

    When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
    Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
    She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
    An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
    Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .

    When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
    The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
    Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
    For noise never startles the soldier.
    Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .

    If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
    Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
    So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
    And wait for supports like a soldier.
    Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

    When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
    An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    Go, go, go like a soldier,
    So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!

  • ||

    I can see another parallel between Rand Paul's position on the CRA and the mosque. Islam is a totalitarian ideology spreading hatred toward gays, non-believers, denying equality to women. It's a good thing for freedom-loving people to minimize Islam's influence. And putting public pressure against the spread of Islam unlike outright government bans is the right way to proceed. Quite similar to Paul's take on fighting Jim Crow.

  • ||

    At the core of this, it does show one thing about Paul that I find troubling: He still hasn't learned his lesson with respect to "gotcha" questions.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Trudat. Sort of.

    On this one, he still didn't give a good principled answer of the sort most of us here would want ... but he did give at least a minimal-damage-non-answer fromt he point of actually getting elected. Once he gets elected to the House of Lords it won't really matter that much. We'll just have to see if he gets corrupted by DC at that point. I think he has better than normal chance of surviving as in intact certied qasi-libertarian. No way to know for sure until he starts voting though.

  • alan||

    Good God this nation isn't nearly what it once was. I bet Joe Kennedy didn't bother to wash the chunks of human out of his suit when Anarchist bombed Wall Street in the 20's before going on to his next business related decision. Here, it is nearly ten years after and GZ is still a hole in the ground.

  • Tim||

    MOsque!

  • hmm||

    You know what Rand should have said?

    "What mosque? There's a mosque issue?"

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Even Better: "WHO FUCKING CARES? WE ARE OUT OF FUCKING MONEY. THIS NATION LIVES ON BORROWED TIME. BUY GUNS, LOTS OF FUCKING GUNS." I'd move to Kentucky just to vote for that bastard.

  • ||

    "I think reconciliation is best promoted by — instead of having a multi-million dollar mosque — maybe having a multi-million dollar donation to the memorial site, would be better for all."

    The suggestion that they're building a mosque near ground zero in order to promote reconciliation assumes I'm way more gullible than I am.

  • ||

    Looks like Paul has learned his lesson about not taking unpopular, principled libertarian stands and is trying to get elected by pandering.

    Anyone surprised?

  • Hacha Cha||

    Is it true Rand fliflopped and is against medical marijuana now.

  • دردشة||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement