Cartoon Coffins
I think its time to talk about the cartoon controversy. At first I thought this would flame out, but it turns out its flaming on. People are getting killed over some cartoons, which you can see here. One, they seem very mild to me, I draw meaner pictures of Stalin Malone in my oatmeal every morning. Having said that, lets review the actions of several US actors. One, the US media. Won't show them. No way, no how. So we have a free, but cowardly press. Very nice. If these cartoons aren't news, then what is? Is this how the mighty "4th wing" handles things? The Danes showed them again after the first wave of protest. Now that's the way to go. I wonder where the MSM gets its cue. Clinton warns about a rising anti-Islamic prejudice. Note, this is the same President who said nothing about Piss Christ. That's a-ok, but some mild cartoons about Mohammed, and, well, that's the time to step up and condem anti-religious actions. He also doesn't take the time to talk about the importance of free speech. But why should he when the press is falling over itself to NOT show the cartoons? I've heard that Kerry has made similar remarks, but I couldn't find them, but I don't doubt for a second that he said something equally as silly. Well if the press and the Dems are running scared, then the GOP should be standing up against this "threat." Well...no. The State Department says this while failing to call out any anti-Christian or Jewish cartoon over the last...ever. I think this coddling goes directly agianst Bush's speech in March where he says, "They hate our freedom. They hate our freedom to worship. They hate our freedom to vote. They hate our freedom of the press. They hate our freedom to say what you want to say. They can't stand what we stand for." THAT I loved.
So to review, the US press won't show them, the same press that will show ANYTHING, Clinton thinks that these cartoons are the start of a level of prejudice that rivals anti-Semitism, while he remained silent on true religious desicration, and the GOP is choosing to look the other way. I guess I can tell who's winning this war of ideals. Now, heaven help us if Hillary wins, her opportunism makes her husband look naive (that one's for you Malone).
Posts
4 comments:
I'm glad to see Mike3000 isn't the only one who can do solid research. Now this blog has two.
Personally (and no surprise to anyone) I agree with Bush's view. The press should be free but respectful. Our media bends over backward not to offend some groups and then hides behind free speech when it offends others. This is not to say that free speech is illigitimate. But being ALLOWED to call UBLo obsequious in his reverence for me and actually doing it are two different things. Curtailing speech should rarely be a funcion of law, but frequently a function of polite expectations.
Iran actually showed the subjective nature of the debate and its absurdity by threatening Halocaust cartoons. They showed that what offends is not uniform. The Dutch request to print those cartoons as well shows the absurdity of the disregard for good taste. I wonder if the Dutch paper would print cartoons portraying insulting stereotypes of blacks or gays?
The media has it's own opinions on who to protect and who to pillory. As UBlo very accurately explains, insulting Christians does not give our media any pause. However, they avoid insulting other groups, typically those that can be described as some type of "minority". Would a story about a Klansman's desire to open a lynching museum generate stories delving into free speech issues? No. But the very reasonable decision to stop giving Maplethorp tax payer handouts to create explicitly insulting art did. And barely a word about why he would want to do something so inconsiderate...if not hateful.
This threatens to take us back to the biased media debate. What is universally agreeable is that what is offensive is subjective. So, who's opinion gets to determine what is within and what is beyond the Pale?
I say mine. Whose with me?
Wondering whether other "insulting" stereotypes would be published is beside the point. I couldn't care less short of libel what anyone in the world publishes, and those with an ounce of anything in their lives other than rage would agree. This, unfortunately, describes all too little of the Muslim world. I'm trying to learn how to sign "Daddy loves you" to a four-month old, and they're killing each other over lines on paper. That's why it's us against them, and no amount of "polite expectations" will change that. What perhaps would curtail their economic and cultural desolation wouldn't be as easy as watching what we draw about Mohammed, or annihilating the generation of jihadists that no matter what else we do, we should bury. But it'd show desperate millions more respect than the "good taste" of figuratively biting our tongues as we literally hug and kiss their despots.
I don't think this issue is a one trick pony. Muslims Behaving Extremely is more than just a hot new video series from Springer Productions; it's common events. And it has been for 100 years, at least. And to say that cartooning doesn't justify it is well founded in reason. But what would the streets of L.A. or Detroit look like if the L.A. Times ran a headline saying, "I'm sorry, but we just don't like niggers."
Whether consideration of others is THE solution to this problem or not (and I say it's not), it is a contibuting factor. Mistreating certain groups in the media (or a cocktail party, or a study hall) is as common as mistakes at a spelling bee and the reason why it isn't always explosive is because most members of most groups behave with some level of grace.
I still say there is no loss and only gain if people strive to be considerate when they speak or write and this is an extreme example of why. Of course, another solution is to pick on the right groups, which is why I reserve most of mockery for Canadians. What the hell are they gonna do about it? Nothing.
Yet you, yourself do not hold to that standard, nor do you enforce it in any of talking heads you adore.
Post a Comment