How they could be prejudice I don't know.

The ADL (the anti defamation league) is an organization that wants to stop the defamation of people. At Miriam Webster defamation is defined as "the act of defaming another" the definition of defaming "to harm the reputation of by libel or slander". This means that they are against harming reputation by accusation with no bases or fact. So why does the ADL say they disagree with the building of the mosque right next to the ground zero. They say that it would make 9/11 victims feel offended seeing a mosque next to ground zero. That isn't correct at all first if you are comparing an Islamic center for prayer to terrorism that is first a slander saying that all Muslims are for terrorism. Which is what the ADL should be against. The whole argument that it will insult 9/11 victims is so off. 9/11 victims shouldn't feel insulted, because this mosque isn't for terrorism it is an Islam center for prayer. This mosque should be seen as how tolerant we are as a society to allow everyone to have the right to pray wherever they want. This is a shame that a organization like the ADL who is against defamation is actually supporting it.

Read more here

watch an interview about the center here

A mosque in New York City

A plan for a mosque to be build in NYC next to ground zero has been much criticized by some New yorkers. The plan was going to happen , but the idea of making the current building a landmark would stop the mosque dead in it's track. The panel of landmark preservation commission voted unanimously that the building wasn't a landmark, and now the building will be destroyed to create an Islamic center. This is great people should have the right to practice their fundamental right to religion, and that includes being able to pray wherever they want. The idea I think to connect people who want to pray and the terrorist who attacked the world trade center is just racism. Just because it is a Islamic center to allow people to pray doesn't mean it supports terrorism. I think this is stupid to deny a religion a center to pray , because some crazy people on 9/11 destroyed the WTC. You can't define any religion by some people of that religion. If you do that it is the definition of prejudice. So to not allow people because of Prejudice no matter what religion is wrong.

New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission denied landmark status Tuesday for a building at the site of a proposed Islamic center and mosque near "ground zero."

There is a prayer site in the building currently, so Muslims are peacefully praying in the building already.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission pointed out prior to its decision that it would have nothing to do with the planned use of the structure.

Read more here

You know what get ride of the tax cuts all togetor.

After watching a some arguments on the telivision I have to say I think Fareed Zakaria has the best idea. Now I have not really changed my mind , becuase his idea is to get rid of all the tax cuts ( I said that to end the tax cuts for the rich). Now you might be thinking this is a recession no time to raise taxes. Not really. Because people who get this money are just saving it. So I say raise taxes, but extend unployment benefits so that people who don't have a job can continue to live just fine considering the tax increse does not go on unployment benefits, and do what Canada did if you recontruct your house the goverment will pay a portion of it. This way we make sure that the money is bieng spend and it employs more people. Give more money to the states extend some stimulus spending and extend unployment. This stuff is a one year idea. So by the next year all stimulus spending is gone more people are employed and tax revenue is up . I say that instead of giving money that people wouldn't spend give it in places to help the middle class and the uneployed. I think this is a good way to help the economy since the tax cuts does nothing, and we need to spend the money in a way that helps the economy. I think that there is also one more big problem the U.S.A has a debt crissis , and the thing is that the tax rate isn't going to be able to give them a surplus any time in the near future. I say if we put the taxes in a place it was during the surplus years of the 90's, end the tax cuts that create 30% of the deficit, end the war in afganistan and Iraq as scheduled, create a helth care service that will save money in the long run and end stimulus spending then the U.S will be able to have a surplus.

A war many wants gone.

The war in Afganistan has become a war that everyone wants gone. Poll after poll show that everyone thinks that the war in Afganistan should end soon. The timeline of leaving in the next summer people agree should happen , and shouldn't be extended. I have stated my opinion on this before we should stay in Afganistan if needed ,but it seems that people just want to end it, and that would probably stop any extension dates in NATO coutries. the prblem is that if we leave Afganistan and it isn't secure enough agaisnt the taliban then we might be pushed back into the war again, so we should stay till the Afganistan army can have the support of all parts of there countries and have a strong hold on there country away from the taliban. If we try to go away from Afganistan not because it is secure and we have done are jobs but for political points then we might go back, and watse more time and money.

Dan Grander you are right.

I read a column in the Gazette newspaper online it was an editorial on the census written by Dan Grander. He wrote a great piece of information on the long term census. He talked about how in 1936 a poll that was taken by 2.3 million Americans on the election of that year. The poll showed that Alf Landon would win and not Roosevelt ,and would beat Roosevelt by a landslide. Mr. Grander mentions the poll was bias, because the people who did the poll where finding the address to send them to by car records. This meant that poorer people where less represented in this situation, which voted for Roosevelt. The result was that Rosevelt did win even though 2.3 million americans polled said that the other guy would win by a landslide. As a comment on the blog stated by Tom he thinks that if a poll that is not mandatory is reliable than how is it that a non mandatory census isn't. The thing is polls that are not mandatory can be wrong. In the 2008 primary New Hampshire was suppose to go to Obama every poll said even the exit pols , but It went to Hiliary. In 1992 the poll in the U.K had the conservatives just winning the election with the max 316 seats (minority Goverment) and would lose 3%of the popular vote (Camapared to the last election which gave them 43% of popular vote , and with 376 seats). The exit poll was wrong , and in fact the conservatives still had a majority , and only lost 0.3% of the popular vote. This goes to show how non madatory surveys can be unreliable, but to be fair as long as it is done radomly with no bias the margin of error can be minor 3%, but even with a margin error of only 3% it seems that you can make a mistake of majority goverments and minority. The long term census which gives very important informations has a response rate of 94% which is high , and shows strong data that is very accurate. With a non madatory census staticians believe that poorer people will not answer the census as much as the other , and this will create a in acurate reading in the census.

Read the editorial here