I have lived in Japan for 3 months now and the difference between here and the United States is unbelievable.
So is the culture in Japan better or worse than the U.S.?
My Take:
So I am going to start this one with a single paragraph that perfectly explains the difference, then I will elaborate:
Two identical trash cans. One on the US Naval Base, one in downtown Yokosuka.
Look at the one on the Naval Base. Its almost completely covered in cigarette burns from people putting out their cigarettes. There is also a lot of cigarette butts all over the ground next to the trash can, not inside.
Now look at the one in downtown Yokosuka. ONE cigarette burn on it and there is NOTHING on the ground next to it. Chances are that cigarette burn was probably from an American anyways.
I personally noticed this and it struck a nerve. You can sum up this entire blog post in that one paragraph. However I feel that I need to bring up some other points.
If you walk around in Japan you will have to try VERY hard to find any trash on the ground. This is because you will consistently see people cleaning/picking up trash. It is also very embarrassing for business/homeowners to have trash on their property so its almost always immediately removed. You will actually be scolded by every day people if they see you drop anything on the ground and not pick it up. Ive seen some Japanese people walk by a trashcan that was full and some stuff had fallen on the ground. They picked up the stuff on the ground and took it with them or to another trash can.
Another thing. I saw a landscaping crew doing yard work and there were 2 dedicated people that held up screens next to the guys who were weed-eating so that if the weed-eaters threw rocks or anything it wouldn't hit peoples cars. How awesome is that? Ever see that in the states? Hell no. Why? Because we don't care. If its not affecting anything we personally own or care about then it doesn't matter to us.
Next. It is extremely rare to see an obese Japanese person. I mean you really have to be looking to find one. I'm not saying that all Japanese are in incredible shape, but most are in good, healthy shape. Why? Because they aren't lazy. If you watch them, everything they do whether its working, walking, etc they do it with intensity. Constantly moving fast. The U.S.? Ya right. We are some lazy sobs. Even if we have to go pick something up off the printer, we sigh, get up slowly making some lame ass remark, then slowly walk over to the printer. What would take a Japanese person 5 seconds to do we take like 2 minutes, and we complain while doing it.
Lastly. It doesn't matter if its McDonalds, a janitor, or a CEO of a large company, the Japanese take their jobs VERY seriously. Awesome service everywhere you go no matter the business and if something is wrong usually 3-4 of them will jump through hoops to make sure its fixed. This is because they actually still have honor and morals in this country. I really wish we could incorporate some Japanese living into out society. It would really help us out.
I have learned alot in my time so far in Japan but I have learned one thing in particular. Americans are a bunch of lazy, fat, rude, un-motivated, whiny people. Seriously we are. Anyone who disagrees with me is probably someone who falls into one of those categories I just named.
We could learn ALOT from the Japanese. Unfortunately we are on a downward spiral of crap and because we are allowed to abuse our Constitution nowadays there really isn't any way to fix it.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Welfare
I had another request from Facebook. This time to write about welfare.
I am going to write on a more specific point about welfare though:
Should a drug test be required before you can receive welfare?
My Take:
So when I go and apply for a job, I am usually required to take AND PASS a drug test. Why? Because they don't want any issues with their business and it also shows a sense of responsibility.
So how about welfare? I did some research and while some states require a drug test to receive welfare it is not a federal law. I then found that almost 70% of people on welfare have not been required to take a drug test.
This doesn't seem fair to me. If I am required to pass a drug test to WORK for money, then why aren't people required to take a drug test to NOT WORK and get money?
There is no way to determine how many people on welfare are actually spending that money on drugs, but you can probably make an educated guess and assume that alot of the people are. Yes there are people who are just down on their luck, or layed off, or medical reasons etc. Yes there are alot of people who legitimately need the money, but its also only meant to supplement you until you can get back on your feet, not as your primary source of income.
Another google search brings up the fact that over 45% of people currently on welfare have been on welfare for over 6 months. Seriously?
I personally don't have solid statistics and most people don't, but the general consensus is that the majority of people on welfare aren't of the highest caliber. This has nothing to do with race, just quality of person.
Lets face it, most of the people on welfare aren't deserving of it. They are more than likely lazy and have found a way to do nothing and constantly receive money. I already stated that some people do actually need it but the majority don't. They are just lazy and would rather soak up taxpayer money.
So if we required people to take and pass a drug test before receiving welfare I bet alot less people would actually be on it. Or what if every month they had to retake and re pass it? I be we would have even less people on welfare then. Maybe we could weed out the junk and only the people who genuinely need it would be on welfare.
If that happened think about our national debt again.
I'm just sayin'.
I am going to write on a more specific point about welfare though:
Should a drug test be required before you can receive welfare?
My Take:
So when I go and apply for a job, I am usually required to take AND PASS a drug test. Why? Because they don't want any issues with their business and it also shows a sense of responsibility.
So how about welfare? I did some research and while some states require a drug test to receive welfare it is not a federal law. I then found that almost 70% of people on welfare have not been required to take a drug test.
This doesn't seem fair to me. If I am required to pass a drug test to WORK for money, then why aren't people required to take a drug test to NOT WORK and get money?
There is no way to determine how many people on welfare are actually spending that money on drugs, but you can probably make an educated guess and assume that alot of the people are. Yes there are people who are just down on their luck, or layed off, or medical reasons etc. Yes there are alot of people who legitimately need the money, but its also only meant to supplement you until you can get back on your feet, not as your primary source of income.
Another google search brings up the fact that over 45% of people currently on welfare have been on welfare for over 6 months. Seriously?
I personally don't have solid statistics and most people don't, but the general consensus is that the majority of people on welfare aren't of the highest caliber. This has nothing to do with race, just quality of person.
Lets face it, most of the people on welfare aren't deserving of it. They are more than likely lazy and have found a way to do nothing and constantly receive money. I already stated that some people do actually need it but the majority don't. They are just lazy and would rather soak up taxpayer money.
So if we required people to take and pass a drug test before receiving welfare I bet alot less people would actually be on it. Or what if every month they had to retake and re pass it? I be we would have even less people on welfare then. Maybe we could weed out the junk and only the people who genuinely need it would be on welfare.
If that happened think about our national debt again.
I'm just sayin'.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Youtube Video
Alright everyone. I got alot of good feedback about me making the Youtube video so when I get home from work I will be making the video. Stay tuned!
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Stimulus packages.
The government sees our economy is trash and the way they propose to fix it is to make a bunch of stimulus and bailout packages in the billions of dollars. What is the effect?
My Take:
First off lets look at the normal American.
A check shows up in the mail for $500 from the government. They say this is to stimulate the economy and they want you to go and spend it. You then take a look at the current economic crisis and say, "I'm going to save this because the economy is in shambles."
The statistics I believe were that over 80% of people saved the stimulus check instead of spending it because of fear that the economy is only going to get worse. What effect does this have?
Lets first take a look at where this money came from.
Did president Obama go to the bank and withdraw billions of dollars from a bank account? No.
Did the big banks and rich people of the world donate the money to be given to us? No.
So where the hell did the money come from? The Federal Reserve.
If you don't know who or what the federal reserve is; one why don't you know about your country; and two get with the program and do some research!
However, I will give a brief description. The Federal Reserve Bank is a group of CIVILIAN bankers who are in charge of and control our money. Look at the top of a dollar bill, it says, "Federal Reserve Note." I bolded and underlined the civilian part because that is important.
So wait, our entire monetary system, our whole money supply is controlled by civilians? Not government employees? Correct. Why is this important? It means that they aren't under government control and therefore do not have to follow the same rules and cannot be manipulated by our government.
Back to where the money comes from. So when this stimulus bill got approved, our government went to the federal reserve and APPLIED FOR A LOAN. That's right, our nation which is a world super power is asking civilian bankers for a loan. This is an entirely different discussion that I may write about at a later date.
So we take out this $814 billion loan. We then divide it up and send it out to the American people. Well like any loan there is interest to be paid. We just gave out all that money to the people, how do we pay the interest on the loan that was just taken out when we are already trillions of dollars in debt? We take out ANOTHER LOAN. Yes. We just pile on the debt. We do the same thing when we need to fight a war. We need billions of dollars to fund weapons, vehicles etc so we ask the federal reserve for money. We spend that money on the war and then take out another loan to pay the interest on the original loan.
Does it make more sense now as to why we are so far into debt?
Next issue. Where does the Federal Reserve get all this money to loan out? Do they just have an account with trillions of dollars siting in it? Ya right. The Federal Reserve UNDER LAW that WE signed and approved is allowed to create or print money. Yes. They can just start up the machines and print away.
So when we go to the Federal Reserve asking for a loan they say, "Sure! Let us create some money first, we will then loan it to you, then you can pay us interest for money we never even had!" Pretty good deal for them huh?
Lastly, and the most important thing to understand. Creating money like this creates inflation. Well Kris, wtf is inflation?
Let me explain. Say you and 3 other friends each have $10. Then say this $40 is the only $40 in existence. You are a farmer. Your other 3 friends are a doctor, landlord, and supermarket owner. The supermarket needs food to sell so he pays you $2 for your food. You have 12$. You have to pay your rent, so you pay the landlord $2. He now has 12$. The landlord needs medical attention and pays the doctor $2. He now has $12 and so on. This is the cycle of a stable economy. Notice however that there is never any more or any less than $40 in existence so you can say that $1 is always worth or VALUED at $1.
Now lets say we pass a law allowing the doctor to create money. He needs to pay his rent but is currently broke so he creates $2. There is now $42 in existence. You can now say that your $1 is no longer worth the same amount because it isn't as valuable since there is more money in existence. The supermarket owner knows there is more money available now which makes his food worth more money. So he raises his prices. This is INFLATION.
So think about this situation now. Federal Reserve creates $814 billion. The $500 sitting in your savings account no longer has the same buying power because it isn't as valuable. Companies know this and therefore raise their prices to meet the amount of money in circulation because they also have to pay more money to buy the products to sell to you! This is INFLATION.
So, how good are these stimulus packages?
My Take:
First off lets look at the normal American.
A check shows up in the mail for $500 from the government. They say this is to stimulate the economy and they want you to go and spend it. You then take a look at the current economic crisis and say, "I'm going to save this because the economy is in shambles."
The statistics I believe were that over 80% of people saved the stimulus check instead of spending it because of fear that the economy is only going to get worse. What effect does this have?
Lets first take a look at where this money came from.
Did president Obama go to the bank and withdraw billions of dollars from a bank account? No.
Did the big banks and rich people of the world donate the money to be given to us? No.
So where the hell did the money come from? The Federal Reserve.
If you don't know who or what the federal reserve is; one why don't you know about your country; and two get with the program and do some research!
However, I will give a brief description. The Federal Reserve Bank is a group of CIVILIAN bankers who are in charge of and control our money. Look at the top of a dollar bill, it says, "Federal Reserve Note." I bolded and underlined the civilian part because that is important.
So wait, our entire monetary system, our whole money supply is controlled by civilians? Not government employees? Correct. Why is this important? It means that they aren't under government control and therefore do not have to follow the same rules and cannot be manipulated by our government.
Back to where the money comes from. So when this stimulus bill got approved, our government went to the federal reserve and APPLIED FOR A LOAN. That's right, our nation which is a world super power is asking civilian bankers for a loan. This is an entirely different discussion that I may write about at a later date.
So we take out this $814 billion loan. We then divide it up and send it out to the American people. Well like any loan there is interest to be paid. We just gave out all that money to the people, how do we pay the interest on the loan that was just taken out when we are already trillions of dollars in debt? We take out ANOTHER LOAN. Yes. We just pile on the debt. We do the same thing when we need to fight a war. We need billions of dollars to fund weapons, vehicles etc so we ask the federal reserve for money. We spend that money on the war and then take out another loan to pay the interest on the original loan.
Does it make more sense now as to why we are so far into debt?
Next issue. Where does the Federal Reserve get all this money to loan out? Do they just have an account with trillions of dollars siting in it? Ya right. The Federal Reserve UNDER LAW that WE signed and approved is allowed to create or print money. Yes. They can just start up the machines and print away.
So when we go to the Federal Reserve asking for a loan they say, "Sure! Let us create some money first, we will then loan it to you, then you can pay us interest for money we never even had!" Pretty good deal for them huh?
Lastly, and the most important thing to understand. Creating money like this creates inflation. Well Kris, wtf is inflation?
Let me explain. Say you and 3 other friends each have $10. Then say this $40 is the only $40 in existence. You are a farmer. Your other 3 friends are a doctor, landlord, and supermarket owner. The supermarket needs food to sell so he pays you $2 for your food. You have 12$. You have to pay your rent, so you pay the landlord $2. He now has 12$. The landlord needs medical attention and pays the doctor $2. He now has $12 and so on. This is the cycle of a stable economy. Notice however that there is never any more or any less than $40 in existence so you can say that $1 is always worth or VALUED at $1.
Now lets say we pass a law allowing the doctor to create money. He needs to pay his rent but is currently broke so he creates $2. There is now $42 in existence. You can now say that your $1 is no longer worth the same amount because it isn't as valuable since there is more money in existence. The supermarket owner knows there is more money available now which makes his food worth more money. So he raises his prices. This is INFLATION.
So think about this situation now. Federal Reserve creates $814 billion. The $500 sitting in your savings account no longer has the same buying power because it isn't as valuable. Companies know this and therefore raise their prices to meet the amount of money in circulation because they also have to pay more money to buy the products to sell to you! This is INFLATION.
So, how good are these stimulus packages?
Monday, August 23, 2010
A request from Faceook.
I had a request from Facebook to write about the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools.
My Take:
"I pledge allegiance,
to the flag,
of the United States of America.
And to the republic,
for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."
It has been that way since 1954.
Everyone knows it or at least at some point did.
This was usually said in school at the beginning of the school day as the whole class stood up, covered their heart, and recited it aloud.
There is controversy today however about taking the "under God" part out of the pledge, or completely removing the pledge from schools. The reasoning behind this is unlike in 1954 when 88% of Americans were christian, there is a much more diverse religious demographic today.
My Take? If you don't believe in God, don't follow a God, you are anti-God, or whatever; Don't say that part of it. If it bugs you enough then just don't recite that part.
There is no reason to completely remove it from our schools because aside form the God part it still teaches good morals and reminds us of our past. Take a look at the rest of the pledge. It says we are pledging allegiance to the United States of America. It says we are indivisible, and that we want liberty and justice for everyone.
Show me a part of that that's bad.
So I say again, if the "God" part bugs you, just don't say it and respect the rest of the pledge.
My Take:
"I pledge allegiance,
to the flag,
of the United States of America.
And to the republic,
for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."
It has been that way since 1954.
Everyone knows it or at least at some point did.
This was usually said in school at the beginning of the school day as the whole class stood up, covered their heart, and recited it aloud.
There is controversy today however about taking the "under God" part out of the pledge, or completely removing the pledge from schools. The reasoning behind this is unlike in 1954 when 88% of Americans were christian, there is a much more diverse religious demographic today.
My Take? If you don't believe in God, don't follow a God, you are anti-God, or whatever; Don't say that part of it. If it bugs you enough then just don't recite that part.
There is no reason to completely remove it from our schools because aside form the God part it still teaches good morals and reminds us of our past. Take a look at the rest of the pledge. It says we are pledging allegiance to the United States of America. It says we are indivisible, and that we want liberty and justice for everyone.
Show me a part of that that's bad.
So I say again, if the "God" part bugs you, just don't say it and respect the rest of the pledge.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
An idea.
I had a thought. What if at the end of the week I gather all my posts and your comments/emails and made a video going over everything on youtube. What do you think? krisco65@gmail.com
Friday, August 20, 2010
The "N-Word"
Oh boy, here we go. Lets see how this one goes.
My Take:
According to Wikipedia:
Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people, and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. It is a common ethnic slur. The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black".[1][2][3][4]
Nigga (Also referred online as Nikka) is a term used in African American Vernacular English that began as an eye dialect form of the word nigger (a word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of theSpanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the colour "black").[1][2][3][4][5]
In practice, its use and meaning are heavily dependent on context.[5] Presently, the word nigga is used more liberally among younger members[6] of all races and ethnicities in the United States, although its use by persons not of African descent is still widely viewed as unacceptable and hostile, even when used without intentional prejudice. In addition to African Americans, other ethnic groups[7][8] have adopted the term as part of their vernacular.
So an obvious difference between the two words. As there should be because they have two totally different meanings. In actuality there are three different words you see here:
My Take:
According to Wikipedia:
Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people, and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. It is a common ethnic slur. The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black".[1][2][3][4]
Nigga (Also referred online as Nikka) is a term used in African American Vernacular English that began as an eye dialect form of the word nigger (a word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of theSpanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the colour "black").[1][2][3][4][5]
In practice, its use and meaning are heavily dependent on context.[5] Presently, the word nigga is used more liberally among younger members[6] of all races and ethnicities in the United States, although its use by persons not of African descent is still widely viewed as unacceptable and hostile, even when used without intentional prejudice. In addition to African Americans, other ethnic groups[7][8] have adopted the term as part of their vernacular.
So an obvious difference between the two words. As there should be because they have two totally different meanings. In actuality there are three different words you see here:
- Nigger - derogatory towards people of African decent
- Nigga - derogatory towards people of African decent if you aren't black
- Nigga - from one black person to the other means "dude" or "friend"
So anytime anyone of any race calls a black person a nigger, it is derogatory. If I say to someone black, "whats up my nigga?" that is derogatory. If two black people say to each other, "whats up nigga?" that is completely acceptable.
So i asked a few African Americans why this is acceptable and the majority told me "you don't/wouldn't understand."
I did however get one educated answer, "because the word doesn't have any power over me and by using it with my fellow Africans shows that it no longer expresses ownership."
I appreciated the response because it actually gave me something to think about, and was a much better answer than "you don't/wouldn't understand."
However, after thinking about it I have to ask the question. He said to me that it no longer shows ownership. But when I look at the phrase "whats up my nigga?" I see "whats up MY nigga?" Isn't that expressing ownership or am I missing something? Lets check wikipedia again.
MY or my commonly refers to the first-person, possessive adjective in the English language, see I (pronoun).
Possessive adjective. Now I am confused again. I am back to square one of not knowing why its not ok for me to say it.
I also asked some people who aren't of African decent what they thought and one response intrigued me. He told me that he thinks they use it amongst each other and don't allow us to use it as a way of saying "haha look what we can do and you cant."
So is that true? Do black people feel that because we are past slavery and they have overcome that part of history its now OK to throw it in our faces? I think this one depends on the type of person also. I'm sure some black people think this way, and I'm sure some don't.
I found a quote from a black college professor online:
"I believe that if an African American decides to freely and openly used the N word in conversation he is proving that he is uneducated and has not moved on from the terrible past of our race."
Ill finish this one off on that quote.
Please sign up for a google account and post comments on your feelings. If you would rather email me: krisco65@gmail.com
Also don't forget to vote in the poll at the top right of my site.
Also don't forget to vote in the poll at the top right of my site.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Internet Explorer vs Mozilla Firefox vs Google Chrome
I'm going to do this one a little differently. I'm going to analyze this debate from two different standpoints:
Number two is like my mom. She can check her email but that's about as far as her knowledge goes.
So, here is My Take:
First I'm going to lay out what I believe are the pros and cons:
Pros:
Internet Explorer
Internet Explorer
I have personally done testing and have used all three. I will never use Internet Explorer again based on the fact that Microsoft has basically deemed it good enough and no longer actively updates it. Not to mention its SLOW AS HELL. Oh and I am not a big fan of being hacked either. If I run into a issue where a website will only work in IE, there are extensions that allow Firefox and Chrome to view it IE style.
I have been a longtime user of Firefox but recently I got a lot of recommendations to use Google Chrome. After using it I am now a Google Chrome user. Here's why:
Google Chrome is FAST. I mean FAST. It loads up webpages almost instantly. While it doesn't have as many "apps" as Firefox it does have all the ones I need and used in Firefox. It doesn't require nearly as much memory to run so everything else my computer is doing runs faster. Google is constantly updating/fixing bugs which means any issues are usually resolved very fast.
So what about the "Number Two" perspective?
Google Chrome is VERY simple. It doesn't have alot of extra crap, no extra toolbars at the top. This makes it extremely easy to use. Plus once again, its fast :)
Let me know your thoughts on this debate, and don't forget to vote in the poll.
- Educated, involved computer user.
- Wtf is a browser user.
Number two is like my mom. She can check her email but that's about as far as her knowledge goes.
So, here is My Take:
First I'm going to lay out what I believe are the pros and cons:
Pros:
Internet Explorer
- Years of experience
- Backed by Microsoft
- Large budget
- Compatible with everything
- Tons of extensions or "apps"
- Fast
- Easily customizable
- Fairly secure
- Huge budget
- Very fast
- Simple and easy to use
Internet Explorer
- The most hacked of all the browsers
- Click a link, go make a sandwich. SLOW.
- Requires a lot of memory to run, which in turn slows down your computer
- Microsoft has ventured away from putting a lot of effort into improving it
- Not so much funding
- Not compatible with everything
- Faster than IE but still takes a lot of memory to run
- Not as many extensions as FireFox
- Not compatible with everything
- Still fairly new so there are a few bugs
I have personally done testing and have used all three. I will never use Internet Explorer again based on the fact that Microsoft has basically deemed it good enough and no longer actively updates it. Not to mention its SLOW AS HELL. Oh and I am not a big fan of being hacked either. If I run into a issue where a website will only work in IE, there are extensions that allow Firefox and Chrome to view it IE style.
I have been a longtime user of Firefox but recently I got a lot of recommendations to use Google Chrome. After using it I am now a Google Chrome user. Here's why:
Google Chrome is FAST. I mean FAST. It loads up webpages almost instantly. While it doesn't have as many "apps" as Firefox it does have all the ones I need and used in Firefox. It doesn't require nearly as much memory to run so everything else my computer is doing runs faster. Google is constantly updating/fixing bugs which means any issues are usually resolved very fast.
So what about the "Number Two" perspective?
Google Chrome is VERY simple. It doesn't have alot of extra crap, no extra toolbars at the top. This makes it extremely easy to use. Plus once again, its fast :)
Let me know your thoughts on this debate, and don't forget to vote in the poll.
Just a quick note.
A few people asked me about making comments on my posts. You have to sign up for a Google account which is incredibly easy. Takes like 25 seconds. So sign up, write some comments, and follow :)
Click here
Click here
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The "Mosque" in New York.
My Take:
First lets lay down the facts.
Constitution states freedom of religion. We are also the "land of the free". If we follow everything we stand for then there should be no debate on this "mosque".
The issue is that most Americans are misinformed. If you ask the average American about the Muslim religion it will almost always link to terrorism. While it was Muslim extremists who were involved in 9/11, it doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists. So even calling it a mosque is inaccurate because its not even a mosque, its a community center.
This being said, choosing to build it so close to ground zero is a huge mistake for a few reasons. Its going to attract a lot of unwanted attention. It will probably be constantly vandalized. Completely peaceful Muslims who go to this community center are going to be criticized and labeled as terrorists. Having it so close to ground zero is a huge mistake. They could easily build it farther away and avoid most of these issues, along with it probably being cheaper.
So why are they building it so close? Some might say to make a strong religious and political statement. Throwing it in our faces that Muslims can do something so terrible, then move in next door. Some might say its based solely on demographics and it is just a convenient location for Muslims.
Whichever the case, it is going to be a constant reminder to those who have been affected by 9/11 every time they pass it. So my stance is this: Build it. Absolutely. I fully support freedom of religion and think its great they want to make a community center. But don't build it next to a place of grief knowing that it will only bring more grief and will endanger your people.
First lets lay down the facts.
- A group of people want to build a community center in downtown New York near ground zero.
- It is going to be primarily for Muslims and will have a prayer room.
- The terrorist act of 9/11 was committed by Muslim "extremists".
Constitution states freedom of religion. We are also the "land of the free". If we follow everything we stand for then there should be no debate on this "mosque".
The issue is that most Americans are misinformed. If you ask the average American about the Muslim religion it will almost always link to terrorism. While it was Muslim extremists who were involved in 9/11, it doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists. So even calling it a mosque is inaccurate because its not even a mosque, its a community center.
This being said, choosing to build it so close to ground zero is a huge mistake for a few reasons. Its going to attract a lot of unwanted attention. It will probably be constantly vandalized. Completely peaceful Muslims who go to this community center are going to be criticized and labeled as terrorists. Having it so close to ground zero is a huge mistake. They could easily build it farther away and avoid most of these issues, along with it probably being cheaper.
So why are they building it so close? Some might say to make a strong religious and political statement. Throwing it in our faces that Muslims can do something so terrible, then move in next door. Some might say its based solely on demographics and it is just a convenient location for Muslims.
Whichever the case, it is going to be a constant reminder to those who have been affected by 9/11 every time they pass it. So my stance is this: Build it. Absolutely. I fully support freedom of religion and think its great they want to make a community center. But don't build it next to a place of grief knowing that it will only bring more grief and will endanger your people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)