Courtesy, the brilliant writers at the Yuma Sun (maybe Arizonans are not that bad after all):
Mmmm, Tacos
There’s something I can’t stay silent on any longer.
But something totally inappropriate has been built on the site of something holy and sacred, and we are turning our backs on history to accommodate a minority.
When the Del Taco on Fourth Ave. went out of business, it struck everybody hard. Everybody was in shock. I remember as a community coming together and being closer than we ever were.
But that solidarity was short lived when a loan company — the very same type of industry that was responsible for Del Taco going out of business — opened in the abandoned Mexican food franchise.
I find it personally offensive that our economy was attacked by these places, and that we allow permits to be issued to allow these attackers to take over the remnants of places they have destroyed.
I know what the opponents are going to say — that the economic collapse wasn’t the fault of payday loan companies. That most financial institutions are good, and it’s just a small number of them that have corrupted the entire industry. That they are still Americans and should have the same rights all Americans enjoy.
But do they have to exercise those rights in the same building where the economic disaster hit home? Shouldn’t they be two blocks away or something out of a sign of respect?
Let us not forget how delicious tacos are and those responsible for taking it from us.
#1 by dustbowl on August 28th, 2010
The location of the new muslim mosque so close to ground zero, a symbol of American defeat akin to Pearl Harbor, a day of treachery and infamy is quite interesting.
Why does it have to be placed so close to ground zero? It stands out like the American flag being placed by Armstrong on the barren moon.
Surely, the chosen location is deliberate and probably symbolic. Can it be interpreted as planting a temple marking the beginning of the end of America and the inexorable conquest of islam beginning with a firm foothold? Someday this could be a sacred place as the centuries go by, and would be very one difficult to remove. This call to mind Jerusalem, where once the muslims have declared it as sacred, the conflict between religions has never ceased.
Will America, in the name of political correctness and freedom allow this desecration?
Is this CREEPING invasion allowed to continue?
Why not place the temple on a less controversial site?
I can remember the one-eyed cleric of London who espoused the destruction of the United Kingdom speaking openly in a London Park being protected from physical harm by British police, who in turn paid by taxpayers money. This is the great loophole of democracy – it can be abused by those seeking to destroy and undermine it.
#2 by observer on August 31st, 2010
So, let me get this straight … you are comparing Ground Zero to Jerusalem? The latter is literally considered the birth place of all religions and even humanity, while Ground Zero is merely the first terrorist attack on American mainland (tune down the patriotic fervor and think rationally for a minute). The analogy just doesn’t hold water.
Besides, the “Ground Zero Mosque” will not even be visible from Ground Zero. Have you actually been to that part of New York and specifically to that street? The nomenclature is being used to create a mountain out of a molehill for the purpose of a juicy story that will entertain us for months to come. And, for GOP candidates to rally their supporters on some scandalous issue.
Finally, I find it quite ridiculous that you mention that Ground Zero represents an “American defeat akin to Pearl Harbor” – if I might remind you, the US was gloriously victorious in World War II, wiping out the Japanese Empire in a matter of months. Similarly, Al Qaeda has been devastated this time around. Neither occasions represent defeat – it seems “defeat” to you means losing a couple of thousand lives. Ask the Germans, Japanese, the French, the British and the victims of decades of Communist terror what “defeat” really means.