For months prior to the event Beck promised that it would be a turning point for America; that it would be an awakening; that miracles would happen. Well, unless a leper was healed in the reflecting pool off-camera, I must have missed the miracle. In fact, all I saw was a live, extended episode of the 700 Club with Glenn Beck as the guest host.

For the most part, Beck kept his promise to avoid politics. While there were a few indirect references to political issues, the bulk of the presentation focused overwhelmingly on Christian fundamentalism. It was an old-school revival meeting without a lick of originality wherein Beck announced that America is “turning back to God.” And although he promoted the event as one that would unite all faiths, there wasn’t a single representative from Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or any other non-Christian sect. The only Jewish participant was a rabbi (and former associate of convicted felon, Jack Abramoff), who was introduced on stage but did not address the crowd.

Also on stage were numerous African Americans, mostly members of gospel choirs. I would venture to say that there were more African Americans on stage than amongst the tens of thousands in the audience.

The sermon Beck delivered was notable in that he defined 9/11 as “a wake up call” from God. That may come as a surprise to those who assumed terrorists from Al Qaeda were responsible. He also stressed that “America is at a crossroads” and that “we must advance or perish.” Beck courageously declared that he would choose to advance. I guess that should silence all those radicals who think we ought to perish instead. However, I wonder if advancing might not be a little too suggestive of the progressive course that Beck so feverishly abhors.

One of the most frequently expressed themes articulated by Beck was that we have been spending way too much time on what’s wrong with America and that it is now time “to concentrate on the good things in America, the things that we have accomplished – and the things that we can do tomorrow. That would be refreshing if Beck were able to sustain it for more than a heartbeat.

Ninety-five percent of show his about what’s wrong with America. He hates the government. He hates the people. He hates the Democrats. He hates health care and the environment and unions and churches and Social Security. To Beck we are a crumbling empire awash in debt, ruled by Marxists and estranged from God. And this guy is lecturing the rest of us about concentrating on the good things? A few days ago he expressed his thoughts on the future in a more foreboding tone that is common on his radio and TV programs:

“I’m begging you to get down on your knees. What is coming is not good. I don’t know how things end. I should rephrase that. I do know how things end. But I know how things end after a long struggle. I don’t know how that struggle is going to work out. I don’t know how much time each of us has. I don’t know how much time the country has.”

How does he expect his flock to concentrate on the good while he is advising them to liquidate their assets and hoard gold and guns? It will be interesting to see if Beck’s new-found evangelistic optimism can be maintained for even the next week of his broadcasts, or if his familiar doomsday fear-mongering will continue to dominate his message. Either way, I’m still waiting for evidence of his Miracle on the Mall. And for the record, my honor never needed restoration in the first place.

First, the proposed construction is for a community center. Will it house a room for worship purposes? Yes. But the building will have a pool, theater, gym, classrooms, culinary center and other features. To call it a “mosque” is about as correct as calling the nearby YMCA a “church” because it too happens to house an area of worship. Walgreen’s currently operates out of the Empire State Building; shall we now call the building “Walgreen’s”?

Second, you can see the building in question from Ground Zero, right? Somewhat, if you look hard enough. It’s a mere 13 stories and dwarfed by the skyscrapers around it. It’s not like there’s going to be a towering structure with spikes and minarets sticking up into the city skyline.

Third, it’s been said there are no other churches or synagogues in that area. This is untrue.

Newt Gingrich has said, “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia”.

New York is not Mecca and the United States is not Saudi Arabia. Maybe Newt wants to be a Prince or a King.

The Republicans continue throwing our false memes to take our eye off the ball and get their lemmings without the ability of critical thought to parrot them. Seriously. If you wonder why they want to gut public education, wonder no longer. They want an dumbed-down electorate who will do as they’re told and believe the lies they’re spoon fed.

The New York City landmarks commission decided this week to act in the interest of New Yorkers rather than out-of-state conservative pundits and voted to clear the way for the construction of an Islamic center in lower Manhattan, a few blocks from the site where the World Trade Center once stood. This was unacceptable to said pundits, who insisted that this site of America’s mourning should be exempted from American values. “We’re all about religious freedom,” explained Sarah Palin, but only “down the road.” Newt Gingrich announced, “I favor religious freedom,” but not “right at the edge of a place where, let’s be clear, thousands of Americans were killed in an attack by radical Islamists.”

The argument from the right is relatively straightforward — Muslim terrorists destroyed the Twin Towers, therefore we should ban all things Muslim from the area, in the interest of healing and sympathy (although, as Salon noted, they were curiously silent when Muslims began praying in the Pentagon shortly after 9-11). That argument necessarily holds all Muslims accountable for the detestable acts of the small and violent minority of Muslims who take up the terrorist mantle. On its own, that would be offensive enough, but people like Palin and Gingrich purport to be sensitive to that distinction and nonetheless run roughshod over it. Palin famously took to her Twitter account to exhort “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the Islamic center. Gingrich acknowledged the differences between “radical Islamists” and other Muslims before launching into an unhinged attack on the “Ground Zero mosque” and “Creeping Sharia in the United States.”

Others simply can’t be bothered to even pretend to understand that “Muslim” does not equal “terrorist.” A “recruiting tool for domestic extremists” was how Rush Limbaugh described the Islamic center. Glenn Beck called it an “Allah tells me to blow up America mosque.” Comments like these badly mischaracterize what the “Ground Zero mosque” actually is and the role it will play in America’s unsettled relationship with the Muslim world.

The people behind the mosque are Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, and contrary to what the right wing would have you believe, Time magazine says they’re “actually the kind of Muslim leaders right-wing commentators fantasize about: modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents.” Rauf has written a book titled What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America. In late 2001, after the 9-11 attacks, Rauf was quoted in New Jersey’s Bergen County Record as saying that Islam must “define its ‘American-ness,’ that is, adapt to the American culture.” The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg, who knows Rauf, describes him as representing “what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country.”

That message, however, is unimportant to right-wingers who are more interested in turning the “Ground Zero mosque” into a wedge issue and stoking Islamophobia for political benefit. The tragic farce of it all, as described by Slate‘s William Saletan, is that people like Palin and Gingrich, who purport to be standing up against terror and for America, are actually promulgating the same message as Osama bin Laden — that “the United States represents Christianity, al-Qaida represents Muslims, Christians won’t protect Muslims, the West hates mosques, peaceful coexistence is a fraud, and the ‘war on terrorism’ is really a war on Islam.” It’s hard to argue with that assessment when you hear the likes of Limbaugh claiming that the “Ground Zero mosque” means Muslims are “planting the flag of victory.”

Jonathan Chait surveyed the right-wing opposition to the mosque and concluded that “a lot of people are going to eventually feel ashamed about where they stood.” That might be true, but all signs seem to indicate that these people are about as familiar with the concept of shame as they are with religious freedom.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Most of these obits are omitting another important transformation Byrd underwent; from a longtime supporter of all things coal to a man who recognized the importance of beginning a transition to a clean energy economy. Indeed, one of the last votes Byrd cast was against the infamous Murkowski Amendment, which would have stripped the EPA of the ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

To call West Virginia a coal-heavy state is a massive understatement — it provides 50% of the nation’s coal exports, and accounts for tens of thousands of our state’s jobs. Any politician publicly rebuking coal here is just asking for trouble, and Byrd was noted for being a champion of coal.

But in December 2009 Byrd wrote an op-ed that criticized modern-day mining practices and accused the coal industry of “having its head in the sand” on climate change. State pols were sure there must have been some mistake. Governor Joe Manchin chalked the whole thing up to a “misunderstanding.”

But it wasn’t a misunderstanding… after 50 years in the Senate, the 92-year-old statesman had apparently revised his views on both coal and global warming. Byrd found it increasingly difficult to argue that the interests of coal companies and the interests of his state are one and the same.

Between noting the clearly debilitating effects of mountaintop removal mining and noting the reality of climate change, Byrd found it increasingly hard to continue to support coal. Many other politicians in his position would likely have continued to support it anyway — that being the politically safe thing to do. But Byrd spoke up, despite a lifetime of backing coal.

This shift should give hope to all those who recognize that the environmental practices and energy policies we have now are not sustainable — even the most stalwart of fossil fuel supporters can see the light, if, as Byrd did, he has the conviction to keep the long term interests of his constituents at heart. His transformation would have been completed would he have been able to vote for comprehensive clean energy reform.

You can read Byrd’s op-ed here. Rest in peace, Senator.

I never thought I’d write this, but I think we’ve discovered a new level of stupid below the heretofore impenetrable Sarah Palin floor.

It’s not unlike the discovery of a previously unknown species of protohuman deep within a cave somewhere, revealing some new twist in the constantly expanding canon of human evolution. There is, in fact, a Republican of national prominence who makes Sarah Palin seem brighter and less contradictory by comparison. That’s not to say Palin has miraculously become smarter or better spoken, it’s just that the idiot curve is now redrawn in her favor.

Yes, Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi is arguably the new king of all Republican stupids. Palin must now relinquish her Twitter feed, her fork cork and her trident. For Haley Barbour has arrived.

What is it about Republican governors? They’re either appearing in interviews with a blood-soaked cletus geeking turkeys in the background, or they’re lying about hiking the Appalachian Trail, or they’re honoring the Confederate States of America while ignoring slavery, or they’re entertaining the treasonous option of state secession, or they’re bitching about government stimulus money one minute, then posing with giant stimulus checks the next minute.

And now there’s Haley Barbour, who said this week about the $20 billion escrow fund to compensate victims of the oil spill:

It bothers me to talk about causing an escrow to be made, uh, which will, which makes it less likely that they’ll make the income that they need to pay us.

Let’s ignore the Palin-ish phrase “causing an escrow fund to be made” and focus on the substance. Paraphrasing Jon Stewart’s analysis: Governor Barbour appears to be suggesting here that if BP sets aside $20 billion to be paid to victims of the oil spill, it won’t have enough money to… pay out to victims of the oil spill. In other words, Barbour is against compensating victims because he supports compensating victims.

Perhaps next time, Barbour should consult with his smarter sidekicks Roscoe and Enos before speaking about complicated topics like “causing an escrow fund.” (Jon Chait gets full credit for the Boss Hogg comparison.)

Of course, this isn’t the first and it surely won’t be last blast of stupid from Barbour during the ongoing oil spill disaster. He’s a study in colloquial southern language and exaggerated accents, a real life character from an unproduced Coen Brothers movie, and it seems that whenever Barbour opens his mouth for something other than pie, stupid things gush out.

For many weeks, Barbour has been downplaying the toxicity and danger of the oil. Back in mid-May, Barbour said the oil spill will have “minimal impact,” rivaling Tony Hayward’s infamous remarks about how environmental damage will be “very, very modest.”

He’s also coined some of the finest “the oil is just like delicious food and therefore harmless” metaphors during the whole disaster.

Who can forget the classic description of the oil as “weathered, emulsified, caramel-colored mousse, like the food mousse.” Yum. The caramel colored food mousse. If you’re like me, you can’t wait to sample some delightful Gulf seafood that’s been marinating in the food mousse.

And the good news is, according to Barbour, “Once it gets to this stage, it’s not poisonous.” Oh boy!

Seriously, if that’s the case, I’d like to see Barbour strap on a pair of inflatable arm floaties and dive into a big old slick of the food mousse and flail around in it for a while. See if he can eat his way out. Maybe the Mississippi tourist bureau could videotape it for their next advertising campaign. You know, because the food mousse is both delicious and not poisonous.

Yet, at the same time, Barbour said, “But if a small animal got coated enough with it, it could smother it. But if you got enough toothpaste on you, you couldn’t breathe.” This made me wonder if Barbour has had one or two mishaps with a gigantic tube of toothpaste. “Dagnabbit! I’ve accidentally caused toothpaste to be made all over myself again! Can’t… breathe! Glug! Glug!” Aides rush into Barbour’s bathroom to find the governor coated from head to toe in toothpaste like a real life version of the Shmoo.

But, as with many Republicans carved from the George W. Bush cloth, the doofish behavior tends to overshadow Barbour’s more sinister underbelly.

According to Newsweek, Barbour is quite a fan of the Confederacy and all of its trimmins’:

The Republican governor of Mississippi keeps a large portrait of the University Greys, the Confederate rifle company that suffered 100 percent casualties at Gettysburg, on a wall not far from a Stars and Bars Confederate flag signed by Jefferson Davis.

When Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia fumbled his way through “Confederate History Month,” Haley Barbour rushed to his defense, declaring that there was no need to mention slavery in the process. Everyone knows about slavery, Barbour reasoned, so why bother to mention it? Barbour, here, played up the debunked Lost Cause mythology — deemphasizing slavery as a means of ennobling the South’s instigation of the Civil War. Barbour said of the slavery controversy in Virginia, “It’s trying to make a big deal out of something doesn’t amount to diddly.”

Newsweek also reported:

Barbour was embarrassed by an aide’s nasty remarks about “coons” at campaign rallies. But in reprimanding the aide, he only made things worse. As The New York Times recounted it, Barbour warned the aide that if he “persisted in racist remarks, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks.”

Right. Everyone knows you don’t speak the truth out loud. You keep your racist remarks to yourself. However, Confederate flags signed by Jefferson Davis are fine and dandy. And if you’re Haley Barbour, it’s also okay to appear at a Blackhawk fundraiser hosted by the Council of Conservative Citizens, a paleoconservative white nationalist organization that, among other things, proudly advances the positions of the old Confederacy.

It gets better. Barbour was also the founder of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, a DC lobbying firm with significant connections to the tobacco industry. When Barbour left the company to help run the George W. Bush campaign in 2000, the firm signed a deal with R.J. Reynolds worth more than $17,000 a month. Nothing like being steeped in lobbying and cancer money on top of everything else.

And Haley Barbour is looking like a frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2012. I ask you, though: Who better to represent the Republican Party against the first African-American presidential incumbent in the entire history of civilization? Here we have an overweight, southern-fried, tobacco-funded, lobbyist superfan of the Confederacy with a history of racially questionable ideas and connections who can barely string together a comprehensible sentence. What better way to put a face and voice to the increasingly regional, homogenized, sophophobic GOP than to nominate Haley Barbour for president.

Keep going, Republicans. You’re doing great!

The additional gas expense is well worth it. If you’ve never been to Marquee Cinemas, picture in your mind neat premises, clean screens, roomy and comfortable seats, and concession prices that aren’t through the roof.

Now, contrast this with what Carmike offers us: screens so dirty it detracts from the viewing experience, cramped and uncomfortable seats, sticky floors, overpriced snack items and absolutely filthy restrooms.

The few good words I can muster are for the employees, most of whom try to be friendly and helpful.

It’s a no-brainer… should I pay for a miserable experience, or pay just a few bucks more and have a great one?

The community deserves much better than this, Carmike. I’d bet that if your competition were closer than Beckley or Wytheville, the business you have now would probably dry up to literally nothing.

Oh, boy, just what Mercer Mall needs…. another clothing store for the teen and young adult market. I predict a FAIL within a year’s time.

I visit the mall occasionally to shop Rose’s or to gawk at the new smartphones on display at AT&T. (I plan to dump my iPhone for an Android device *if* I even stay with them) Other than that, the place has nothing to interest me except a once-in-a-blue-moon sale at Penney’s that actually features something I want.

But, the entire Mercer Mall situation deserves a separate rant of its own, so watch for it!