Centerfield

Can there possibly be a more pathetic, insecure, dysfunctional, depraved, infantile group of people then muslim "men"? If these fiends weren't so dangerous we could actually laugh at them. muslim men are sexually, emotionally and mentally dysfunctional. What normal person would act this way over cartoons?

And shame on CNN for their cowardice masked as "sensitivity".

Has any American media outlet displayed these? I have not seen them elsewhere. Although, I have not been looking real hard becuase I saw them in other places.

The Philidelphia Inquirer was the first American paper to publish them. Most other outlets have not. The New York Sun has. The New York Press editorial staff quit en masse yesterday after their paper refused to publish the cartoons.

And they didn't report on Saddam's atrocities because they were afraid they'd lose their cozy news connections in Baghdad.

CNN, the noble wimps.

On the bright side, CNN has given us the funniest headline of the year to date.

BUSH URGES END TO CARTOON VIOLENCE

Itchy and Scratchy, look out!

They've since amended the headline to something less amusing, but it was so good I had to share.

CNN is now giving a different excuse for not printing the cartoons: "CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself."

As Powerline notes, CNN was not so reticent about adding fuel to the anti-American fires stirred up by the Abu Gharib photos.

It all comes down to the fact that intimidation and violence work far better than outrage and peaceful protests when it comes to influencing mainstream media coverage in this country. Shame on them.

CNN generally summarizes the cartoons as depicting the prophet Muhammed, "including one showing him wearing a bomb as a turban". This leaves the hapless viewer to assume that all 12 cartoons are like that, all showing Mohammed as a blood-thirsty bomber. In fact, 3 of the images are entirely innocuous, and most of the others illustrate the fear felt by Danes intimidated into silence by the killing of Theo Van Gogh. By omitting the context and highlighting only the most "offensive" image, CNN is not telling the whole story. The images are crucial parts of the story, which cannot be told in full without them.

All the big media corporations have a presence in Muslim countries. I can't imagine any of them risking cash flow for a cartoon. What about FOX? They always talk tough, have they shown it?

Briefly, Bob. Fox did show a poster that Michelle Malkin had put together showing the cartoons for a moment, but then the video cut to more pictures of the protests.

Malkin has been at the forefront of bloggers exposing this issue and has links to every piece of information that has come available so far, including the really offensive cartoons created by the Danish imams themselves who started all this, as part of their effort to foment precisely the current reaction.

Cute! She tried to drag fox out of the closet but they didn't want to go.
I'll bet Murdoch wasn't happy with that stunt.

It irritates me that some of the American media have decided not to publish the cartoon(s), thereby abdicating their responsibility to inform their subscribers. If I am reading the story, and really want to get the info I need to make my own judgement as to appropriateness, I need to see the cartoon. I don't want or need the Boston Globe to be my daddy.

I call on all such media outlets to explicitly acknowledge that they are adopting a policy of self-censorship for the sake of safety and not giving offense even if it means depriving its subscribers of content that is legitimately relevant to understanding the complete context of a given news story.

I think the Danes have gotten it pretty close to right in saying that they will not apologize because the Danish government and the Danish people are not responsible for a newspaper's contents." But I'm troubled to hear that they do have laws against blasphemy and offensive speech, which suggests that some of them don't get it completely.

I couldn't help but notice that in CNN's unscientific reader-initiated poll, only 2/3 of respondents say freedom of expression is more important than respect for religion. So maybe we don't all get it either.

I do think it's important to point this out again, as well-- free speech rights give people the right to be A-holes, and say unkind things that other peoiple won't like. As we know, having the right to say something can be substantially different from actually being right to say something.

So I'm OK with any government that simply stresses that people have the right to free speech, and their opinion, even if that makes them an a-hole. I am also borderline OK with a government that says "we think X was an a-hole for saying what X said. It was a regrettable statement."

The only responses which bother me are the ones that suggest we should limit free speech so as not to offend anyone. This is one of the very rare cases where I acknowledge the legitimacy of the slippery slope argument, because the risk is there that we'll move off of a pretty firm step regarding public speech, which is that if you're offended, that's your problem, and your recourse is confined to more speech.

And we fall from that firm step onto a standardless slope where virtually all speech is subject to censorship if it offends. We slide quickly to the bottom, and land dumbfounded, wondering what portion of speech is left unquestionably free.

How would you like to be the CNN corresponent/editor/producer/whatever in an arab nation who finds out that they just showed all those wonderfully offensive images. You might as well pin a sign on your back that says "shoot me".
It's hard enough running an ENG package and doing what you need to do to get the shot, get the sound etc., without looking over your shoulder while dodging rocks, bullets and mobs. How many journalists were killed last eyar??

The problem here isn't cowardice, it's safety for CNN's and Fox's personnel and yes, it's the money that goes with being international companies who have to deal with a lot of crazy people out there. It's also how you maintain a presence in those very countries. So unless you're willing to volunteer as a news correspondant in Iran or Syria or whatever, I think you should be a little more charitable in your judgement here.

Thank god for those guys in the field that someone in corporate has enough brains.

Now on the publishing end, yes it should be done. By everyone. All the newspapers. And there should be discussions back and forth about what appears to be the soft white underbelly of Islam.
Here's a very good salon interview from today with Hirsi Ali, a Dutch legislator.

Outspoken Dutch politician Hirsi Ali says the Danish cartoons should be displayed everywhere. Feb. 7, 2006 | Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament, is one of the most sharp- tongued critics of political Islam -- and a target of Islamic fanatics. Her provocative film "Submission" led to the assassination of director Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The murderer left a death threat against Hirsi Ali pinned to van Gogh's corpse with a knife.

Marcus,

I can understand the argument about not wanting to risk their journalists lives, but at the same time, do you avoid a story because of a threat?

I would understand the "international corporation" argument if CNN, the NYT, Fox, and whatever other one you want to throw in, had the same standard for Christianity. But, quite simply, they don't. They know that Catholics aren't going to torch buildings over vulgar depictions of the Virgin Mary. Because of that, they are perfectly willing to offend Christians because they know that they will not suffer physically and because they know that we will all wax eloquent defending their right to free speech. But, throw muslims in there and they get all considerate and stuff.

What really bothers me is that the media is now reporting on the call for Holocaust cartoons, seemingly implying that a Holocaust cartoon is somehow equivalent to a depiction of the Prophet. Six million people (at least) were slaughtered during the Holocaust. These other cartoons are simply a depiction of one man. It's not the same thing and I very much resent the unspoken implication that it is.

I'm curious, is Al Jazearra(sp?) running the cartoons?

Can there possibly be a more pathetic, insecure, dysfunctional, depraved, infantile group of people then muslim "men"? If these fiends weren't so dangerous we could actually laugh at them. muslim men are sexually, emotionally and mentally dysfunctional. What normal person would act this way over cartoons?

What? The focus of the above post was to point out the double standard comitted by CNN and other media types, and you use this as an occassion to launch a tirade against muslim men? I thought religious stereotyping was above this blog. Apparently I was wrong.

But feel free to continue posting here, Laura. I completely support your right to post whatever obnoxious rhetoric you want. I just want to let visitors to this blog know that your views are not at all representative of the people who regularly post here.

The distinction between the cartoons and Kanye West is that ANY graphic depiction of Mohammed is firmly against Islamic law. Christianity is quite the opposite--the more pictures of Jesus, the better.

When CNN says it is respecting Muslim adherents, its as much for the act of depicting, as it is for how he might be depicted.

They ran the Passion Play around here a few years back and the church putting it on cast a black man as Jesus. That ignited a firestorm that would make you wonder if there were a more pathetic, insecure, dysfunctional, depraved, infantile group of people than those that call themselves 'Christians'?

If I yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, I can't complain when I get trampled. If you insult religious fanatics that have already proven they don't need much of a provocation to torch things, you can't complain when they do.

Religious Fanatics are scary in ANY country.

torridjoe, there are indeed some sects of Christianity which believe that Jesus should not be depicted in pictures. And there are Jews who believe that the name of God should not be printed. Historically, there have been periods in which Muslim scholars have approved the depiction of Mohammed. Where is CNN's concern for those Christians? Where is their concern which would keep them from displaying pictures of Jesus Christ in a jar of urine?

The same imams protesting these cartoons also believe the Koran prohibits women from being pictured in anything less than a full burqa. Should CNN respect those beliefs by not displaying lingere ads or women on the beach? I'm glad to know, though, that you value not offending the sicere beliefs of others above freedom of speech. I'll remember that next time an argument comes up over goverment funding of disgusting art.

scott, did the local "firestorm" include bombings, kidnappings, and death threats?

Your last argument is foolish. If I refuse to pay protection money to the mob, knowing that the mob will then torch my business, is that my fault? Am I not allowed to complain when they do?

If some guy in another city in my state says something offensive to Muslims, can I not complain when the offended Muslims attack my city? Remember, the protests, boycotts, and riots began before all the European papers republished the cartoons. The Muslims who resorted to violence and extremism targeted not just the newspaper that actually ran the cartoons but also all Danes, Danish products, and the Danish government.

I for one am glad the American press has refrained from publishing the cartoons. I can make a case for intelligence rather than cowardice for their not doing so. It's possible that they actually have our national interest at heart (all past evidence to the contrary). A free press isn't obligated to publish anything they feel is against their (and our) best interests.

It may be a case of intimidation, but we already have a target on our backs. Why outline it in day-glo? Whatever the reason, the calls to publish the cartoons in the US press (for no other reason than to poke a finger in the collective Muslim eye) don't seem to be in our national interests right now.

AR,

It's that they feel free to show speech that offends others, not just Christians.
As for the people that work these stories - it is an acknowledged risk but I'd hate to see friends of mine like Mike Cerre left hung out to dry for a gesture that can easily be accomplished by other means.
(yeah I can name drop - Mike and I used to work together years ago on a geography show. Fortunately I don't think Mike's doing any more remotes back there.)

Today we can have Rush Limbaugh asking how many women will get picked up after the Coretta Scott King funeral and how many babies will result because in the US and other western and eastern democracies we have free speech and people who appreciate the irritant of the same. That's why he's still alive. He's a dick but he's alive. In totalitarian arab countries that are trying to hold onto power, and who fear the reformist forces developing among émigrés, demonizing and censorship are de rigeur as are creating environments of fear and intimidation. Rush would have his head on a pike.

Would we say to black people in the 1950s, "you shouldn't endanger yourself by challenging the beliefs of those Kluxers?" I would certainly hate to see innocent journalists killed over these cartoons, but I also hate to see self-censorship because of fear of violence. Should the New York Times not have run pictures and columns hostile towards Bull Connor or the KKK because it might increase the risks faced by their reporters covering the story in the Deep South?

At any rate, the Muslim extremists don't seem to show much reluctance to harming reporters. They are still holding that female journalist hostage trying to demand that the U.S. release all female Iraqis prisoners. I don't think any of them will say "oh, no, folks. That's a CNN cameraman, and CNN didn't run the offensive cartoons. Let's kidnap that print journalist from the Philidelphia Inquirerer instead." Remember the Italian socialist journalist they captured? The one where Italy paid her ransom? She was extremely sympathetic to the "insurgent" cause, but they kidnapped her anyway.

Should the New York Times not have run pictures and columns hostile towards Bull Connor or the KKK because it might increase the risks faced by their reporters covering the story in the Deep South?

It's a good point Pat, but the weight of pointing out Islam's "backwardness" is being carried by others right now. I say let's take a break from being in the forefront for the moment. It reflects badly on me, but I get a certain satisfaction from being able to say I told you so to the 'peace and brotherhood' countries.

That's a fair point, Dennis. On the whole, I disagree, but our significant presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does require us to be more circumspect than we otherwise would normally be. That doesn't change the fact that the media has a serious double standard, though. When they printed, constantly, the Abu Gharib photos, or ran stories (ultimately proven false) of guards deliberately urinating on copies of the Koran, they said they couldn't concern themselves with what consequences doing so would have on our troops and relationship with Iraq and Afghanistan. "It's news, so we're running it" was the thrust of their attitude.

I join you in being glad that Europe is finally waking up to the plate in confronting Islamic terror. I am particularly, though cautiously, encouraged by their actions regarding Iran thus far.

Laura's remark is precisely the kind of name-calling we try to keep out of the blog. But I won't burn down her house.

Pat - No, no kidnappings, etc. I didn't mean for the argument to be foolish. The point I was trying to make with the last argument is that people that commisioned the origianl drawings did it knowing that they would incite anger in Islamics. If I yell 'fire' in a theatre, I do it knowing full well I am going to get people in a panic. That was the comparison I was going for, that they KNEW the consequences and did it anyway. No deeper meaning, no great insight, unfortunately. If I was that great a thinker, I would get paid for it, instead of posting my ramblings on the web.

Scott,

OF COURSE they knew it. That was the point. They did it in response to the murder of Theo van Gogh. They wanted to illustrate that if society is willing to self-censor criticism in order to avoid offending violent people, it makes it's self slaves to those violent people..... and they were right. - "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It's only against some interpretations that say that it's wrong to depict Muhammed at all, under the prohibition on idolatry. It's not a universal "hard ban" in the Koran, but post-Koranic interpretations. Different sects have different views.

And guess what? An Egyptian newspaper printed those cartoons last October--and there was no violence.

Scott, sorry if I was a bit harsh, yesterday was hectic for me. I would actually suggest that the cartoonists did NOT know that they their cartoons would spark violent protests around the world because some Danish imams purposefully used them to provide Syria and Iran with ammunition to inflame Arab tempers. At most, they probably expected some street violence by local thugs of the sort who killed Theo Van Gogh.

Chronology of a manufactured outrage, from the New York Post.

Luara,

"Can there possibly be a more pathetic, insecure, dysfunctional, depraved, infantile group of people then muslim "men"?"

I dont know. Maybe those who would riot on bahalf of some drunk driving drug user name Rodney King.

"If these fiends weren't so dangerous we could actually laugh at them."

It is because you are so stupid that I am laughing at you.

"muslim men are sexually, emotionally and mentally dysfunctional."

How would you know who were sexually, emotionally and mentally dysfunctional? Considering the population of Muslim men in the world, I would say that those who did act violently were a small proportion, but hey when you are talking about those Muslims/Arabs (however your agenda dictates) its easy to generalize.

"What normal person would act this way over cartoons?"

Who is to say they are reacting to the cartoons anyway? Maybe they, in their countries where there is no freedom of press they were reacting to something else. With the right kind of provocation you can get people to do alot of things.

We should be asking what normal person would react violently to the presence of Tutsis in thier midst.

CNN should have run the cartoons immediately. Now it's too late. Publishing the cartoons is no longer of use.

Good heavens, Pat, what was that? Five, six years ago? Anyway, as the Roman Catholic painter explains, in his culture, elephant dung is a symbol of fertility; that's why he made one of the Virgin Mary's breasts out of it. It's not like he got a picture of the Blessed Mother and smeared cowpies on it just to get people upset.

Then again, there's Serrano's Piss Christ which comes much closer to your point. ;-)

Anyway, back to the topic. I agree with Tully; the cartoons aren't the reason, they're just the excuse. As the Salon article shows, Morroco is about 95% Muslim, but there's no anti-Dane violence going on there. Syria has a lower percentage of Muslims, and it's a dictatorship as well; do you really think they couldn't have prevented the riots and burnings if they tried? There are many powers who would love to deepen the jihad between the West and the Middle East; this is a feeble excuse, but an excuse it is.

On the other hand, if you DO want to watch something offensive, (yet hysterically funny) you can watch this music video. It involves cows, guns, and cow dung, though not necessarily in that order. ;-)

That does it, Jean. I'm burning an embassy to protest this offensive "Cows with Guns" cartoon! How dare you display anatomically graphic (if slightly incorrect) pictures of the Great Cow Guru (pbuh)!

ROTFL! Yeah, I noticed that too; the cows are portrayed with udders rather than "old man"; this is sexism! (Or rather, "cowism") Feel free to burn our embassy if you wish, Pat; just make sure the steaks come out medium rare. ;-)

I will grill for you any time you like, Jean...

We will run free, with the buffalo...

How many other nations can claim that buffalo penises are a part of their monetary system?

I'm vaguely worried that you noticed that, Tully...

But I'll be happy to grill some (non-penis) Bufallo meat for y'all if you Kansans ever want to come for a centrist party down here in red state Louisiana.

(Insert prairie oyster joke here...)

Sorry, Tully, not goin' there, not with the weekend tantalizingly in view. :-)

Thanks for the invite, Pat! I can't speak for Tully, but we Kansans have the best BBQ in the country in KC. You'll have to come up and we can have a centrist cookout (and be able to argue all the important issues without typing our fingers off. ;-)

As much as I hate to concede anything to that mostly-Missouri city up there in the far corner of the state, Jean's right about KC barbecue. Where else can you get decent burnt ends?

Arthur Bryant's. KC Masterpiece. Gates. Winslow's. Jack Stack!

Damn. Now I have to go gnaw a rib.

(Can we possibly get much more off topic?)

Only with the arrival of the potted meat by-products, Tully.

LOL! Well, look at it this way, Tully; it may be mostly Missouri sauce, but it's mainly Kansas cattle that make KC BBQ great. (My great grandfather raised Black Angus, and that's what he said, anyway.)

But don't take our word for it, Pat. Come up to Kansas and Tully and I can show you where "we will run free like the buffalo." ;-)

(Can we possibly get much more off topic?)

Probably, if we tried. We went from blasphemous cartoons about a religious leader which are currently causing violence, to a violent cartoon about a cow religious leader, to violently consuming cows. Sounds like a natural progression to me.

But hey, it's the weekend. We can always tear each other a new one on Monday. ;-)

Just to move as far from the topic as humanly possible, I'd like to ask for your thoughts on the sex life (well, gene transfer) of phytoplankton and other eukaryotes.

Why? Well, because they are the fundamental food source for almost all ocean life, including the distant, distant ancestors of both ourselves and the bovines we will be consuming at the barbecue. And the crustaceans I could arrange for you to enjoy if y'all come down to Louisiana, instead.

My opinion? Too many big words, too late at night. Hope they have a happy Valentine's Day. Good night.