February 22, 2006 by lonbud
The Not-So-Funnies
I have had a hard time making sense of the cartoon scandal, in which people have died and the Danes have felt — so far — at least some economic blowback. Who wants the challenge of seeing one’s prophet depicted in absurd or degrading ways?
Then again, it’s comics.
A measure of clarity came with news of the South Park “Bloody Mary” episode being set for broadcast in New Zealand, generating calls from the Catholic Church there for boycotts against the TV stations contracted to show the irreverent American comic.
I recall the show stirring a few passions here on its initial broadcast, and it’s certainly not to suggest the Catholic Church has no beef with public desecration of its iconic symbology — nor that the people of Islam lack the same over the Danish cartoons — but this is at least a plane of consciousness on which many of us can meet.
No?
Is it not possible for the mythical Arab moderate (like the American middle class) to prevail upon his more militant minded brother that a comic is nothing to kill or die for? For all of our rapacity and bloodlust here in the decadent West we’ve at least been able to keep our militants that far in line.
I believe it’s high time for the mythical Ameican middle class to begin seeking out the mythical Islamic moderates in our midst to find a way to jointly win the war of ideas in the WOT, to come from a place within our seemingly disparate and irreconcilable cultures into a basic understanding of the things in life that are not worth killing or dying for.
Left to their own devices, the “leaders” of both cultures are set on a course to mutual destruction.
Butler Crittenden - February 22, 2006 @ 1:28 am
I cannot imagine how I’d react to 2,250,000 mujahadeen who managed to set up bases and grab “green zones” in the U.S., and had a modern airforce to bomb the bejesus out of us and all kinds of high tech gismos to watch us and sneak into our homes, and all the rest. That’d be the number on a proportionate basis of our population to theirs and our troops in their country.
And if they then told us, not to worry, we just want your great plains grain production, and we’ll leave the rest to you. So stop shooting, please, and bring us some chocolates and roses. I don’t know what I’d do, especially at my age.
But your central point stands: very little if anything is worth killing other humans to get, and our “leaders” are most certainly not decent leaders. My guess is that it’s up to them, however, to come to their senses or be removed from office, and for the nation’s policies to change to live and let live in the Middle East. Such a change plus a lot of economic aid might help end the insanity there.
Melanie - February 22, 2006 @ 2:59 am
The Muslim world’s response to the cartoon is but another example of their utter disregard for human life yet allegedly in the name of their faith. Their use of young children as suicide bombers while deplorable in every sense, at least purports to the symbolism of martyrdom.
The Danes simply exercised freedom of speech. Remember when we thought we had that here in the USA ?
Tam O’Tellico - February 22, 2006 @ 7:24 am
While it’s easy to fault the Muslim mobs and the mullahs and politicos that further incite them, this is not so simple a question as much ado about nothing but cartoons.
And before we get all sanctimonious about OUR civilized religion, let us not forget that not so long ago Christianity had the rack and we were still burning witches in the name of protecting the Faith. In fact, to this day it is not legal for a Catholic to rule England and surely the dying in Northern Ireland is not over yet.
Having the wrong religion or descecrating someone else’s can get you killed in many parts of the world. And of course, the priest can do far worse, excommunicating you and sending you to eternal punishment — unless you’ve matured to the point that your faith does not depend on interpretation by an earthly authority figure — a plane I suspect that has not yet been reached by a majority of moderate Christians or Muslims.
But there is a larger question here, one that our “civilized” society is remiss in addressing.
Ask a teenager, and he or she will tell you he or she has a “right” to play loud and obscene music anywhere, anytime. He or she also has a “right” to do anything that law does not specifically prohibit — and he or she is not too sure about some of those laws.
What they don’t have is any responsibility to the society that permits them such freedom. I try to explain to these kids — and to any so-called adults who will listen above their booming stereos this simple fact of human existence:
A right is what you’re willing to die for, the rest is privilege.
How does that apply here? Yeah, cartoonists, you have a right to print whatever you damn well please, just as those you offend have a right to take their protest to the streets and to boycott the products of the nation that permits you to do so. But are you behaving responsibly in exercising your childish whims?
We would all like to believe that your childish cartoon expression of freedom, though tasteless, idiotic and certainly not humorous, does not give those you offend the right to kill your ass. But I repeat, a right is something you must be willing to die for.
Well, are you willing to die for your right to print stupid cartoons or play 50-Cent obscenities at ear-splitting levels? If not, understand that this is a privilege not granted much of the world — use it wisely and responsibly or it may be taken away. At that point, you can choose whether you wish to risk dying to get it back.
Tam O’Tellico - February 22, 2006 @ 11:21 am
Speaking of cartoon characters, I watched Scott McClelland tap-dance at today’s WH news briefing. Foremost was the controversy over the UAE misunder-management of American ports.
As McClelland would have it, the President says we have to treat the UAE exactly like we do the British. I guess that’s the same logic that says airlines should treat 29 year-old Arab males from Egypt the same as 85 year-old grandmothers from Nebraska. Right.
Well, the administration can slice and dice this one all they want to, but it ain’t gonna play in Peoria, let alone in South Carolina. As SC Sen. Lindsey Graham pointed out, the administration appears to have gone politically “tone-deaf”.
Once again, the President says “trust me”, but in this case we learn that he was not involved in this decision until last week. Trust me, trust my cabinet. Doesn’t sound much like due diligence to me. And folly of all follies, he has threatened to exercise his veto power for the first time in his five year presidency.
Wow, the President must think this deal is really important if he’ll exercise his first veto to take such a risk. It begs the question — why?
Meredtih Charpantier - February 22, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
In the spririt of spreading democracy and freedom to the tyrannies and dictatorships of the world, I think it is critical that those of us who truly do believe in the freedoms and democratic rights U.S. citizens did fight and die for a couple of times over a while back, ougt to defend those rights to the teeth.
Though I am pretty attached to the notion of life, I would at least be willing to raise some hell to defend the right of the citizens of another democratic nation to exercise his/her inalienable right to the freedom of expression…as I would take to the streets to defend the rights and the responsibility moreover, of the press to remain separate from the church: its church, your church and my church, and therefore not to be bound to the dictates of any individual religion. Clearly, criticism of most prophets, gods or religious icons is not deadly, and it shouldn’t be ever.
Remember Salmon Rushdie’s political assylum. Do you remember a humoungous media side show about it, or debating his right to ideas contrary to the fundamentals of his country of origin’s dominant religion.? Or the revolution British colonists waged once to this end.
A lot of good rational can be found for senseless killing and dying. But as we’ve already checked off the establishment of freedom of speech and freedom of religion lets try not to go back there.
If only we could help it.
Bubbles - February 22, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
LB,
I believe both (as if there were ever two) Islamic moderates have picked their sides at this point. Woe is we.
Tam O’Tellico - February 22, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
Meredith, of course I am in favor of free speech and freedom of – and from – religion. But that’s not my point. My point is, many people in America take these rights for granted and don’t know the difference between a right and a vice. It is also an open question whether they would be willing to take it to the streets and the battlegrounds as our forefathers did in order to maintain their liberities.
My second point is that it is a serious mistake to assume that everyone else in this world holds those same values. Clearly, they don’t. While we may decry the lack of such freedom in Muslim countries, we should never forget that there are many in America who are perfectly willing to give away the right to free speech in exchange for the right to impose their dogma on others.
I mentioned Northern Ireland, but the Irish troubles are not strictly a matter of religion any more than the troubles in Iraq. A far better example would be the loonies in America who somehow find a loophole in a faith supposedly based on Jesus’ teachings that justifies blowing up abortion clinics and murdering doctors. Wouldn’t you consider that terroism? I certainly do.
I would remind you that Pat Robertson may be crazier than a shit-house louse, as Momma would say, but he is not alone; he has a huge following among the Religous Wrong. These folks believe the Founders intended America to be a theocracy, and they are bent on making America as intolerant as the Muslim theocracies.
Need examples? In North Carolina a church recently kicked out several members for the sin of — voting for Democrats. And in that same hotbed of democracy, the state Republican party recently insisted Republican faithful surreptiously send church membership rolls to the party.
All this must keep Franklin and Jefferson rolling over in their Deist graves.
Jeseppi Trade Wildfeather - February 22, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
“Any person who burns or desecrates a cross or other religious
symbol, knowing it to be a religious symbol, on the private property
of another without authorization for the purpose of terrorizing the
owner or occupant of that private property or in reckless disregard
of the risk of terrorizing the owner or occupant of that private
property, or who burns, desecrates, or destroys a cross or other
religious symbol, knowing it to be a religious symbol, on the
property of a primary school, junior high school, or high school for
the purpose of terrorizing any person who attends or works at the
school or who is otherwise associated with the school, shall be
punished [CALIFORNIA CODES, PENAL CODE , SECTION 11410-11414]”
Islam means “Peace”. When you mock a person’s God, the prophet of their God, or any symbol of the same, you dishonor, and disrespect them, while threatening their peace of mind because what usually follows is something more aggressive, and often some personal violent form of attack. In effect, one desecrates the peace. So, in America we prevent that from happening and prosecute the offender. Our laws protect the peace.
Islamic people are no different. They feel disrespected, dishonored, and threatened as we do. In the face of the aggression of the West they now feel terrified by the West. The West is responsible for the deaths of over a million innocent people, mostly children, and the numbers are ever growing. The West has desecrated their land, their livelihood, their ancient culture, their women, children, venerated aged, their wealth, their peace, has inspired civil war in many cities, and now it attacks their religion and their god, and all for the purpose of stealing their geological possessions. If you wish to see a different response from Islamic zealots, Why not try this: Jesus taught us to love our enemies. That as much more threatening than our military weapons and personal raping their culture. Islam hates Christianity more than anything else. Ouch! So, when they attack a real Believer preaching brotherly love, as he lay bleeding and dying, he may say, “I forgive you, and may the love of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you, my brother.” And, as the life drains from his shattered body, he says, “Islam ale cum”, then dies. You have two choices, either you see this guy as utterly revolting, or you begin to wonder who God, and love truly is, and be converted to considering love, life and peace. And, somebody changes his mind about war and killing. In effect, that person could conceivably transcend religion, hate, and all the theologies the separates us, and truly know that eternal Peace which surpasses all understanding. Sound absurd? Many have. I have. I am hoping one day Barbara Marx Hubbard gets this understanding soon. I fear she is polishing up the guillotines as we speak for my seventeen inch neck.
This is the reason why the West finds it so hard to understand such a bitter response. The peace we think we have in the West we think was founded upon this noble, albeit, idealistic, ethos. When, in actuality, it was founded on “Guns, Germs and Steel.” But, even this seemingly humane viewpoint is rather rabid-ly changing. Let’s face it, the modern West has been vicious and blinded in its lust for power, wealth and cruelty since William the Conqueror. Today we compare to the Romans whose perverse voyeuristic souls delighted in seeing innocent, prayerful victims suffering, and begging for mercy, while being publicly tortured in the arena. Been to the movies lately? But why … why so violent, Oliver? Answer: The masses will pay for violence. Big!
More sadly, the rules of Social Darwinism govern the grand play for world hegemony. The world leaders live and swear by it, even quiver for it [satanists all of them] though quietly hidden under classified cloaks called national security [classified: of the superior class]. It goes like this: one culture can only truly evolve after having destroyed the existing one unmercifully, and with unrelenting brutally –plain and simple [cf.: Mien Kampf, Lenin, Caiphas, Stalin, Chief Joseph’s writings, Skull & Bones, Robert J. Lifton, Genesis]. Once the minds and beliefs of the dumbed down, half educated masses have been transformed through fear, and have fully assumed the new Aryan mentality of prosperity, democracy for all [global hegemony], the technology, and the machinery of genocide is what destroys human beings, while the loyal soldiers main concerns, stress, and feelings are focused, and limited only to critical issues of precision, efficiency, and masterful execution of the gory pogroms. Had your flu shot lately? [cf.: Lifton, “The Nazi Doctors”, p.493, “The Technology of Genocide”. Read it on the web] – Wildfeather
This post will appear in “Unbelievable Gibberish”, the news review section of The Naked Underground.
Meredith - February 23, 2006 @ 6:00 am
All the more reason to hold fast to our conviction that our hard won rights to a few remaining freedoms remain inalienable. Had a Danish comic dropped insulting leaflets in a sereptitious fly over on to unsuspecting pious Muslims then they would indeed have something to complain about.
The debate regarding these issues is surely good for us, but the death toll is not necessary as this whole sideshow did not spring up spontaneously, but was largely inflated by complicit media mongers. The world got the story as breaking news three months late.
The same journalists who forget to speak to the ProChoice Christians in the U.S. are gravely aggravating Islamic intolerance by not mentioning that there are muslims who respect the right of an infidel to make even unflattering remarks in his/her own press.
Tam O’Tellico - February 23, 2006 @ 9:07 am
I am reminded by my christian friends (christians: professors of the faith not mature enough to qualify as Christians) that Islam is inherently evil. They argue that Christianity teaches men to put away the sword, while Islam demands that men use it.
This makes for an interesting philosophical/theological debate. but if one accepts that distinction, one can reasonably argue that Muslims are truer to their faith than Christians are to theirs.
When it comes to Jesus’ message of peace and love, practice has not made perfect.
It would seem that we are asking Muslims to live up to our standards, standards we do not live up to ourselves. George Bernard Shaw had it about right when he said “Christ was not the first Christian; he was the last Christian.”
I would add an aphorism of my own: He who has all the marbles believes everyone should play by his rules. But those who’ve lost their marbles may have their own rules.
Tam O’Tellico - February 23, 2006 @ 9:31 am
No-So-Funny Joke of the Day:
Today we welcome a new addition to the Nismomer Nation. Present members include the Clear Skies Initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Jack Abramoff created 501-C Indian rip-off charity – the Committee for Republican Environmental Advocacy. (Please, no laughing out loud, Big Brother may be listening.)
.
Let’s give a warm welcome to another doublespeak denizen, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which was created by the intelligence overhaul President Bush signed into law in December 2004. Just for the record, the board has never met. No joke.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-liberties20feb20,0,4164820,full.story
lonbud - February 23, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
Speaking of Jokes, tonight I heard Halliburton got the contract to remove the lead from Harry Wittington’s chest, neck, and face.
Melanie - February 24, 2006 @ 6:26 am
It is beyond comprehension that the President can simultaneoulsy profess to not know about the Port deal with UAE/Dubai, yet endorse it and threaten to veto legislation opposing it. Whilst both parties and the President claim to have been left out of the loop while the Administration cut the deal ? A day late and with 6.8 billion at stake, the President assures the American people that Dubai is our “partner in the war against terrorism” despite having spawned two of the 9/11 hijackers and filtered funds for 9/11 attackes through a UAE bank.
This is not just about selling access to our ports, but rather selling take over of management of 6 U.S. ports by a company controlled by the UAE government.
Freedom of speech? Statement by second in command at Pentagon that “people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.”
Last time I checked, “People” can publicly oppose anything they so desire.
Tam O’Tellico - February 24, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
Port-o-Gate
It looks like DubiaU has finally been fully exposed in the Port-o-gate Affair. The most telling revelation is Bush’s admission that all this was completely decided before he was even told about it. Amazing in a matter of such import.
Also amazing and very revealing was Bush’s assertion during an interview that this had all been examined and approved by “my government”. Gee, and all this time we thought if was of, by and for the people.
Apparently this deal has such serious possible consequences that every department of the executive branch had to thoroughly investigate before signing off on this proposal — every branch but the executive himself — he only had to sign off.
No problem, say these departments, and so says the President, and, until the Press shone a light in this dark corner, so said Congress. But the public seems to suspect them of being three blind mice, and asked a question of its own — What the hell were you guys thinking?
The public has an equally important second question as well. Since this is obviously such serious business, how is it possible that the President didn’t know anything about it until it was all over? Which leads to another: What other important policy decisions has he been left out of except to sign off on an authorization? The Iraq War, maybe?
Instead of putting the brakes on what is clearly a political and possible security liability, Bush belligerently threatened a veto that made him look even more like a schoolyard bully caught with his pants down. Instead of acting like an embarrassed adolescent, Bush should be asking a few questions of his own. Like: Is this really a good idea and who the hell hung me out to dry on this?
It doesn’t look like Port-o-Gate is going away anytime soon. Obviously, the majority of Americans have the good sense to suspect that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s probably not a grouse. Maybe Deadly Dick should have been aiming at this turkey instead. But enough of these foul fowl funnies – as everyone agrees, this is deadly serious business.
Port-o-Gate has made a lot more people see the light about this President, and question whether he is serious about minding the business of the people. It has also cast serious doubt on the abilities and involvement of this President.
What astounds me is that so many Americans still don’t get it. But as I’ve said before, if Bush stood naked in front of the White House and held up a sign that said “I’m stupid, I’m to blame, and I’m sorry” (fat chance that), his most rabid supporters would likely think it was a plot hatched by the “liberal media”.
All these questions need to be addressed and answered, and until they are, the ship of state will remain in serious need of a secure port. Until then, the old adage applies: “Any port in a storm”.
It appears that in these stormy times, America has settled for such a port and such a captain.
Tam O’Tellico - February 28, 2006 @ 6:51 am
Perhaps this is not so funny as well. According to researchers, there are at least 23 ways to tell if someone is lying:
“Touching the nose, touching the face and ears, slurring or stammering, leaning forward, swallowing, lip licking, inappropriate smiling, pauses filled with such words as “uh” and “er,” increased slips of the tongue and grammatical errors, an averted gaze, throat clearing, increased verbal qualifiers such as “generally” and “actually,” expansion of contractions into full phrases such as “didn’t” into “did not,” emphasis of statements with such words as “”honestly” and “as far as I know,” decreased finger pointing, decreased hand gestures in general, tightened lips, shrugging, increased handling of such objects as eyeglasses or papers, decreased blinking, crossed arms, closing the hands into fists, increased sighing and audible breaths.”
Guess I should have watched Bush’s State of the Union speech a little more closely.