For the Mosque

If I had known the party was going to last this long, I would have arrived sooner.

Really, I thought we'd have a few days of politicians demagoguing, and then we'd move on to the next manufactured crisis. Oh, well. For what it's worth:

A few weeks ago, when I heard about the proposed Islamic mosque and community center a few blocks from Ground Zero, a center where the emphasis would be on tolerance and understanding, it was not difficult to form an opinion. Of course we should allow the mosque to be built; in fact, we should welcome it. This was also the reaction of the local authorities and community, along with a commentator on Fox News and probably a lot of other folks. No-brainer.

Then this summer, a few sharp-eyed politicians spotted an angle, a wedge they could pound on to stoke fear and loathing to their advantage. They've paraded a grab-bag of bogeymen: Islam; the leader behind the mosque; the funding for the mosque; the violation of the sanctity of Ground Zero; the hurt feelings of 9/11 survivors.

Sorry folks. My opinion hasn't changed.

You may detect a lack of energy here. Lordy, I feel like I'm having to explain, for the umpteenth time, why it's good to have an open society. This is like going back to school and repeating civics. Some smarter-than-me fifth-grader can probably do a better job, but here goes. (Or you can skip my feeble prose and read William Saletan's articles here, here, here, here, and here.) As I see it, these are the main arguments against the center, with my responses:

Islam is evil. Well, we certainly have no shortage of people making evil use of Islam these days. The Taliban are lopping off noses in Afghanistan. In many theocracies, women are being sentenced to death for not much more than being women. And Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are proclaiming death to anyone who disagrees with their world-view—Muslims, Christians, anyone.

But I would hesitate to assign a religion to perdition based on the horrible behavior of a few of its followers. Fifteen years ago, it would have been Christianity in the dock. Catholic Rwandans and Orthodox Christian Serbs had carried out genocidal campaigns against Christians and Muslims they didn't like. If anyone had pointed to these murderers and claimed that's what Christians were like, we would have marked that person down for a liar or a lunatic.

Likewise, anyone today who points at extremist Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or wherever and claims they represent Islam is seriously disconnected with reality. In Houston, we've lived among Muslims for years with no problem. (Remember that basketball star who used to play for the Rockets?)

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is not to be trusted. Rauf has spent a lot of time building goodwill toward Islam here and abroad, and he hasn't been afraid to condemn extremists. Christopher Hitchens has found a few objectionable utterances, but this is far from showing the man intends to subvert our society.

You just can't trust those Muslims. This is the blanket version of the distrust issue, and today isn't the first times America has cast an entire group under suspicion. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we rounded up Japanese-Americans and interned them—just as a precaution, mind you. The President was in on this, as were the Supreme Court and most of the rest of the country. Later we realized what a shameful act this was; the Japanese-Americans were overwhelmingly patriotic. And today I have yet to see any evidence that large numbers of American Muslims are out to destroy our country.

The funding for the center is suspicious. As Jon Stewart has pointed out, the funder of the mosque is also a major stakeholder in Fox News. I think this guy's radicalism may be exaggerated.

Ground Zero is sacred. Fortunately, the Islamic center is proposed for two blocks away. And after the center is built and in use (if that happens), I can easily imagine groups of Muslims walking over to Ground Zero and vowing that never again must Islam be used to justify this sort of atrocity.

Since 9/11, a lot of people in Manhattan have a visceral hatred of Muslims; don't aggravate them. Certainly this is a consideration for Rauf and his followers. They may yet decide to go elsewhere so they don't have to deal with the hostility. But if they decide to see the plan through, how can decent Americans oppose them? It's too much like the old days when blacks were discouraged from moving into white neighborhoods, because there were a lot of whites who hated blacks. Many blacks beat a retreat, but a few went forward. And in many cases integration was disruptive, but ultimately a boon for our country. Segregated America needed to be shaken until its damn teeth rattled. And today's sudden irrational fear of Muslims deserves the same treatment.

Hell is Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre did his share to fan the flames of tiers-mondisme, notably in his inflammatory preface to Fanon's already inflamed book. Against the backdrop of decolonization and the Algerian War, he argued that "to shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time: there remain a dead man, and a free man." Sartre's later philosophy was tainted by the link between revolutionary violence and authentic self-realization. In his view, acts of violence committed by the oppressed represent instances of existential self-affirmation: they serve both to eliminate the oppressor and to disrupt the psychology of oppression. In a world where class injustice is rampant, Sartre deemed violence on the part of the oppressed to be inherently "moral," just as colonial violence was intrinsically immoral. Such simplistic oppositions and views became a trademark of Sartre's later "phenomenology of liberation." As late as 1973, at the height of his pro-Chinese phase, Sartre observed crudely that the Jacobin dictatorship failed because its leaders did not kill enough people.

—from "The Counter-Thinker," by Richard Wolin, a review of Pascal Bruckner's book, The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, in the August 12 New Republic.

LCS 2010: Finale

Really?

Okay, Felipe Esparza is funny. The bit he did tonight about going down to Mexico with his friend was some of the best comedy he's done. And he's unique. And there didn't seem to be a next George Carlin/Robin Williams/Richard Pryor in the group. So, okay. Oh, and my favorites came in second and third. It's not the first time my exacta has been spoiled by a dark horse.

So what else happened?

I thought Iliza Shlesinger had the best performance of the night. High heels, shopping, short women—these are not new topics, but she brought a funny, fresh perspective. And she showed her usual flair for physical humor, impersonating a pugnacious woman taking a punch. I think of her as this generation's Carol Burnett.

Tom Popa was actually quite funny, but for some reason I find myself resisting his humor. He kind of has a cheesy reality show host aura about him.

Kathy Griffin brought her dish, and she had some funny moments.

Hooray for the Best Joke: Kurt Metzger's bit about his father's funeral being ruined by the announcement of Michael Jackson's death. How did this guy not make it into the final ten?

As for the judges ...

I'm guessing Andy Kindler can be funnier. Tonight he made a point with "Last Scientist Standing": Intellectual progress is not the best thing to evaluate by popular vote. (Hmm, does he see stand-up primarily as a way to display his intellect? It can be that, but it can also be a way of having fun and sharing it with a group. Just a thought.)

I just didn't get into Natasha Leggero's rather arch character. Maybe I needed to be more familiar with her shtick.

Greg Giraldo hit some good ideas—the OnStar terrorist bomber commercial, the homeless a cappella singers, food addiction—but he seemed a little rushed. Still funny, though.

Going further downhill ... the documentary shorts and the musical numbers could have been dispensed with. As a host, Craig Robinson was good enough; I'd be happy to see him back next year.

The overall quality of comics, from the semi-finals on, was the best I've seen in the history of the show. The new, more straightforward format served comedy better than in previous seasons, though I missed the "I'm funnier than" showdowns. The action in the house was great back in Season 1 but not so much after that. Sigh. I miss Dave Mordal.

LCS 2010: Final 5

Since the elimination of Rachel Feinstein after the show two weeks ago, the final rounds have been all men. The dearth of women comics (and comedy writers) on television has been in the news off and on for the last few years, but here is the chance for Last Comic Standing to make a small gesture of amends! To bring tonight's show up to an hour, they are having a guest comic, and who better to stand in for women than ... overweight redneck comic Ron White? He does a nice set about drinking, being drunk, and understanding drunkenness. Here's to you, ladies!

Jonathan Thymius has finally been eliminated. He had a good run.

Roy Wood, Jr., starts with a word about his uncle the drunk, suggests wristbands to identify non-racist whites, and laments his constantly being enlisted to lie to the wives of married friends. It's the usual funny, smart set.

Tommy Johnagin tells about his redneck uncle—apparently all comics have comedy-worthy uncles—stealing a portable toilet; accidentally going to a gynecologist as a thirteen-year-old; and hitting a deer with his car. I don't think it's up to the level of his previous routines, but the judges like it.

Myq Kaplan likes to start with a quip about what came before him, and tonight he points out that he is not Tommy Johnagin. (Apparently some feel they resemble one another.) I would have given him more points if he had come out and said, "Let me just start off by saying, I don't have any uncles." But he spins a good set, going from gay rights to women's suffrage to an alternate name for manholes. The judges think his is hilarious, hilarious, and so funny. (And really, with the five most talented comics remaining, there's not much for the judges to say.)

Felipe Esparza goes back to the tough childhood well and adds a bit about his gay brother. Andy takes the opportunity to slam Carlos Mencia as a phony (and Felipe as the real deal). Jeez, are people still going after Mencia? It seems a bit dated. Maybe Andy's saving his newer stuff—a whole run on the movie Avatar—till next week. (Kidding.)

Mike DeStefano says Buddhists don't yell, which would have been the perfect time for a heckler to point out Tiger Woods is a Buddhist, just to test DeStefano's improv mettle. That doesn't happen. DeStefano goes on with funny, dark material about a homeless guy and a $20 bill, the proper hammer to brain someone with, and the relative shooting skills of blacks and Italians.

My ranking of tonight's routines, from the top: Wood, DeStefano, Kaplan, Johnagin, and Esparza. But who would I rank as the best comic overall? Probably I'd have Johnagin edging out Wood. These are five talented guys, though. Was Craig Robinson kidding when he said the five of them would be touring together for the next 297 days?

Next week we learn the winner, and we also get to see the judges do some comedy. Yippee.