Funmurphys: the Blog

Blasphemy Against Judaism, Christianity, And Islam

Anderson Cooper has a story about the so-called “Lord's Resistance Army”. This bunch of psychopaths is under the leadership of one Joseph Kony, and they operate out of northern Uganda. The column is titled “Old horrors, young victims”, dated February 23, 2006:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/02/old-horrors-young-victims.html

Unfortunately, this is rather an old story. The horror in Uganda has been going on for many years. The “Lord's Resistance Army” kidnaps children for their use, and so the fleeing children become “night commuters” to secure areas in order to avoid being taken and enslaved. It's sickening to read Jeff Koinange's post from CNN, but I'm glad he reported the story.

Joseph Kony and the LRA claim “to base its principles on the Ten Commandments”. Perhaps they can't read, or perhaps they are operating under a different version of the Ten Commandments than the ones you and I can find in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21.

If you want to see blasphemy against a religious faith, don't look at a few Danish cartoons. Look at Joseph Kony, the “Lord's Resistance Army”, and the despicable things going on in northern Uganda. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all revere and try to follow the Ten Commandments. That's our Lord they're talking about. That is the ultimate blasphemy – doing monstrously evil things and claiming to be acting for God.

Northern Uganda is not on our list of strategic places, so don't expect the U.S. Marines to drop in there any time soon. But how about an allied force of Jews, Christians, and Muslims? Surround Kony's base of operations in Uganda and take him out! If by some mistake we happen to capture him alive, we can drop him off in a nice comfy cell in The Hague next to Slobodan Milosevic and let him deal with Carla del Ponte.

Not All Side Affects Are Bad

Viagra, its not just for erecitile dysfunction anymore. Researchers investigating Crohn's disease have uncovered evidence that it may be caused by an excess of bacteria allowed to flourish due to a sluggish immune system and they speculate that viagra could improve the blood flow to the intestine (I guess it isn't site specific) which would help clear the bacteria.

Coming on the heels of the discovery that rifaximin, an antibiotic used to treat diarrhea, also works for Irritable Bowel Syndrome, it would appear that intestinal bacteria are like women: can't live with them, can't live without them.

1 Billion Sold

While reading this article about Apple hitting the 1 billion song download mark, yes, I said billion, I noticed the claim that essentially Apple breaks even on the downloads but makes money on the iPods. What this means is that it will be hard to dethrone Apple in the music business. And I assume that this is why a lot of the other entrants are chosing a model of charging a flat fee to provide access to everything - that way they can set the monthy fee high enough to actually make a profit of the downloads without requiring people to buy their hardware. But that also means that it will be hard for other companies to make money following the Apple model without their own proprietary hardware to listen to the songs -- which will tend to limit the companies that can compete that way, and by that I mean good hardware for the player and a good store experience in iTunes.

(full disclosure, I own Apple Stock and I download songs from iTunes).

Larry Summers

The firing of Larry Summers as President of Harvard is just one more symptom of the death of Universities as institutions of learning and inquiry. A sad, sad day. Larry, you should have stood your ground when you raised the question about gender difference.

Dubai Ports, Oh My!

So we have dropped Dick Cheney accidentaly shooting his friend like a wounded quail and its on to the sale of a British company, P & O Ports, to an Arab company, Dubai Ports. There are plenty who think this is a really big deal. I happen to agree with Michael Crichton observation:

The first is that there is nothing more sobering than a 30 year old newspaper. You can’t figure out what the headlines mean. You don’t know who the people are. Theodore Green, John Sparkman, George Reedy, Jack Watson, Kenneth Duberstein. You thumb through page after page of vanished concerns—issues that apparently were vitally important at the time, and now don’t matter at all. It’s amazing how many pressing concerns are literally of the moment. They won’t matter in six months, and certainly not in six years. And if they won’t matter then, are they really worth our attention now?

But I'll throw my two cents in even though there are more important things to write about.

The whole concern really is just anti-Arabism and guilt by association. How many members of al qaida have been recruited among international Arab executives as opposed to alienated Arab youth? It's not like Syria or Hamas is taking over port security, or even Iran getting nukes. One of the things I'm struck by is how were always telling Israel to quit complaining, get over their security concerns, and cooperate with those nice Arabs, but when the shoe's on the other foot, Katie bar the door!

Port security is currently non-existant, but we weren't worried. What do people think - that Dubai Ports is going to use people from Dubai as port security instead of Americans already here? That realistically, anything is going to change except where the money ends up? Does anybody who's complaining really know what a port management company does? If you're seriously complaining, then shouldn't we require background checks on the workers, not just on the ownership? Why not bar any Arab-American from working in port security, airline security, the CIA, the FBI, the police, as a crossing guard just for being Arab? I mean, they are the enemy after all, and security is paramount.

Dubai is an ally in the war on terror, a country that has aligned themselves with the west, and What kind of message does it send to the Arab world besides you'll never be good enough to be trusted by the US. What's the difference between this and Ann Coulter's offensive remark about ragheads except one is made by a fringe polemicist and the other would be the official position of the US government? How would Dubai take such a snub?

I have to admit that I was shocked by President Bushes immediate threat of a veto, especially after all that hasn't been vetoed (that doesn't mean just you, McCain-Feingold, you fascist swine piece of legislation). But perhaps President Bush is trying to repair the damage, or perhaps he overreacted -- just like those who are complaining.

And for those who complain that the President should have realized the American public is a bunch of arabphobic bigots, who abandon their principles at the slightest provocation, all I can say is quit pointing fingers at others for not protecting you against yourself, especially if you call yourself a libertarian. Either that or admit there are times that even adults sound of mind and body need a nanny.

And to those who really do honestly object to the deal because they think Dubai is our enemy, remember Don Vito's advice: Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Relief of Mafeking

If you are wondering why it got so cold in the midwest this past weekend, it was because once again my son's Boy Scout troop was going camping. The weather has been very mild this winter except when we have a troop outing -- and that's been the story since we've joined. We've missed two outings - one was beautiful, and the other was lousy weather-wise. But all the others - much colder than the weather either before or after.

While the most fun was at night, and the stellar display was far beyond what I'm used to seeing in my backyard at night, the scenery was better during the day, as this picture showing the council ring at Camp Sunnen, which the boys had to hike up to in the dark, and it's view overlooking the lake demonstrates:

So this past weekend is the troop's "premier" outing -- and the last before the "new scouts" join. Our extraveganza was The Relief of Mafeking, where Lord Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts held out for 217 days against a much larger Boer force in 1899/1900 during the second Boer War and which brought him the fame that allowed him to make Boy Scouting a success. Each patrol was briefed on their mission, smuggled through enemy lines covered under tarps in a trailer pulled by a real WWII jeep, dropped off at the foot of a ridge where they had to find a trail (OK, the embedded reporters showed them the trialhead) and then they were provided a series of challanging tasks by operatives along the way until after a couple of miles over hill and dale they made it into Mafeking where we all had a nice hot bowl of Chilli at midnight.

Did I mention this was done at night under only starshine? In temperatures around 5 deg F? With snow on the ground? And you know what, it was a lot of fun, even though it was the 2 and 1/2 time I'd been over the course, knew what to expect, and was working a lot harder than most outings. Saturday morning, the dads moved/gathered wood to the spots we needed it, Saturday afternoon the dads and older scouts ("staff") hiked the course discussing what we wanted to do and who was going to do it, and Saturday night the 4 scout patrols maneuvered all way to the end, given nothing but written orders to guide them.

Another nice touch was the heated cabins we stayed in, and the couple (Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Sifrig) who cooked all the meals we ate. We were worried that the snoring might collapse the building, but the noise wasn't bad even without earplugsm, or at least that what the one dad who wasn't wearing them said.

I Won The Gold

Forget the Olympics, I won the Gold at the Sine Qua Non Caption Contest. And believe me, the competition was fierce, as I narrowly edged out Lynxx Pherrett who has an even worse case of blog hiatus than Charles and Rodney Dill who is Mr. Caption himself. Just call me Rocky.

Google Vs. DOJ

America has developed a bit of a privacy fetish. When we woke up one morning and realized that computers know everything about us, we got paranoid. I'm all for privacy, but when every company I do business with puts in inserts every month telling me about their "privacy policy" and people worry about anyone knowing where they live or that anyone can get pictures of their house, then things have gone a bit overboard.

And that brings us to Google vs. the DOJ. The DOJ is involved in case defending a web pornography law and they have asked leading search engines to provide a random sample of searches and indexed sites with no connection to who made the searches. The DOJ was conducting a science experiment about how well filters worked vs. how well a law would work at keeping p0rnography from minors. The other search engines have complied, but Google got up on it's hind legs and claimed that they were worried about their users privacy and their own trade secrets. The mere mention of users privacy was enough to set off the baying of the hounds about how the DOJ wanted to violate web users secrecy and made Google out to be the good guys.

It strikes me that what Google is really and only concerned about is their trade secrets here (or perhaps their image if it became known just how much of their business is p0rn related). I say this for two reasons - one is that Google has already violated their users privacy by keeping track of what everybody searches; and the other is that they've already sold out their Chinese users. The only person interested in keeping your privacy is you. Don't ever forget that.

Up Up and Away

Move over Virgin Galactic, here comes Space Adventures. OK, there are more than two firms trying to be the first commercial space tourism firms to actually put tourists into space on their own equipment (a few people have flown on Russian government flights). Good luck gentlemen. The question is if you can get enough people to pay a million dollars to have a suborbital fight that it will fund the development and develop the confidence so that you can offer orbital flight for $100,000.

Questions Easy, Answers Hard

Is it just me, or does Larry O'Donnell sound like he had a few too many before going on the air with Hugh Hewitt? Actually, Larry always sounds like he's had a few too many and isn't a happy drunk.

What about the ambulence attendents? Would they be in on the cover up, too? Maybe an intrepid reporter can track them down and get their story.

Here is another example where reality will divurge between left and right; it will become an article of faith on the left that Cheney was drunk when he shot Mr. Wittington, and it will become an article of faith on the right that he wasn't. And I'm not one of those people who like to split truth down the middle, either Cheney was or he wasn't and so one group is quite simply wrong.

We Are The World

Last night while watching the Olympics (yes, of course after American Idol) they were showing the moguls competition -- which I find not just silly but annoying because sports shouldn't have judges, which is probably the best reason to prefer curling as an olympic sport to moguls -- and the funWife and I noticed how they have the current top three competitors sitting in order and the guy in the middle at the time was clearly asian (you don't see too many in olympic skiing events). He popped up to wave to the stands before the last competitor since he was going to medal, and so the TV obligingly told us that Toby Dawson was waving to his mother, who was clearly not asian. I immediately told my wife, he must be an American. We are the world.

1,000 Words

It's not too late to enter Sine Qua Non's caption contest. Charles is holding them weekly, or until the next time he decides to take a break from blogging.

This Time ...

This time, it will be different: Amazon is working on a subscription based digital music service. The fact that Napster, RealNetworks and Yahoo! haven't had much with a subscription model doesn't deter Amazon.

Harry, Get Well Soon

Vice President Cheney accidentally shot a friend while quail hunting over the weekend and you'd think something of national import happened. I guess it was a slow weekend in the Natalie Holloway case. The VP's tardiness in notifying the media -- the 22 hour gap -- is driving some people bonkers. What difference did the delay make? None has been offered, so I'm left with nothing but Ecclesiastes: Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity.

I realize that the best way for the VP to have handled the situation from a PR standpoint was to have immediately notified the press, made a tearful apology on camera, and in general treat it as more important than Iran getting nukes. But really, should I care that the VP accidentally shot a fellow hunter? And who should the VP apologize to besides Harry Whittington, the man he shot? He didn't shoot the American people, so why does he owe us an apology? If all we want is to hear Cheney's apology to Whittington, what do I make of all this outrage over the NSA listening to private conversations?

OK , I do think at least one important question has been raised by this "scandal". Why is that preening doofus David Gregory on NBC's payroll? I had no problem with quantum physics, but I'm completely stumped by that one.

Actually, the handling by Cheney may not be so bad as people are saying. For one thing, the press corps has predictably behaved so wretchedly that they are sharing the spotlight with him. And he's built interest in the interview he's going to do, so this way he only has to apologize on camera once. And thirdly, all of us who think of ourselves as laconic he-men admire the way he's taken the laconic he-man approach to this. My inner laconic he-man has been stirred so much by the VP since since he and the President called New York Times reporter Adam Clymer a major league asshole (and of course the left was up in arms over that bit of truth telling) and Cheney alone told Senator Pat Leahy "'intercourse' you" when Pat was trying to play nice in private after blasting him in public. Laconic He-men are the same in private as in public, and expect other people to be the same.

I miss the Clinton presidency. Now there were real scandals and issues. Take eavesdropping on international calls. Every President since Alexander Graham Bell has done it, and every President, including Saint Jimmy, since FISA was inacted has said they still had the right to eavesdrop on international calls under the constitution. In other words, old news. But when Clinton was President, we got to see the claim resolved that per executive privelege Presidents should be immune to any non-Presidential lawsuits while President. Illegal wars? Heck, President Bush has congressional authorization. President Clinton had nothing when we pre-emtively attacked Serbia over Kosovo. Secrecy? Have you forgotten Hillary Care so soon? Maybe the VP should explain he grew up hunting with his father and all questions will cease. Hey, it worked when Hillary explained how she was able to make so much money in futures. I pity the Democrats who have so little to work with.

Check Engine Light Solution

If your check engine light comes on in your car, tighten your gas cap first. You might even consider taking it off and putting it on again but this time tightly just to make sure. I'm embarrased to tell you how much it cost me to learn this lesson, but I provide it to you for free. That's just the kind of guy I am.

Danish Cartoons: Freedom of Speech

Clearly this is a freedom of speech issue. While there are legal limits on speech even in West, these cartons are clearly legal in Denmark, legal in the United States, and probably legal in all of Europe. So from a legal standpoint, end of story.

But only lawyers with the winning case in court are satisfied with just a strict legal view, the rest of us are worried about what we ought to do or say, not what we can do or say. Most of us believe that there is a line you should cross in public discourse, and a different, less restrictive one you shouldn't cross in private discourse, but that is by no means universal. So just what is that line anyway - who draws it, and who decides when and if it's been crossed? At least in private discourse, it's the person(s) you are speaking to directly, but in public discourse you can be speaking to the world, even at a small paper in Denmark. Just how much do you have to take into account before expressing yourself? Different communities have different standards, even within the United States, and within a global audience, the differences can be huge.

Here we have the collison of two values - one is the reverence in Islam for the Prophet Muhammad, and the other is the reverence for free speech in the West. Which one wins, whose values should we follow? If I am not a believer in Islam, why should I have reverence? Who should respect the other one more? I in the west, or those in Islam? If Moslems want me to respect their reverence, can't I expect them to respect my freedom to speak my mind?

Is this a "clash of civilizations?" If you mean clash in the sense of war or struggle between, then the answer is no, not really. But if you mean in the sense of incompatibility, then the answer is yes. I want to be clear that I'm not talking about religion here, I'm talking about culture. There is not much of a contemporary culture of freedom in Islam, nor is their much respect for religion in the West these days.

At one time it was clearly understood that the core right of freedom of speech was the freedom to offend other people. And the more important the belief being offended, the more important the right to be offensive. It's why Lenny Bruce was such an icon of free speech, or Larry Flynt was considered a champion of freedom of speech in his legal battle with Jerry Falwell, or why the ACLU was heralded as a bastion of freedom of speech for their fight on behalf of the neo-Nazi march through predominantly Jewish Skokie Illinois.

But that isn't the case any longer.

What has happened to those people who say "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it to the death?" A lot of them, mostly on the left of the political spectrum, no longer say that anymore. Now the motto is, I don't agree with what you say, so shut up already.

All of a sudden a lot of progressives who used to tell about the importance of freedom of speech, unfettered in your face communication, are telling me that just because you have the legal right to be offensive doesn't mean you have to exercise it. Well, thanks for coming around to my way of thinking. But don't go too far and claim that because you shouldn't say just anything we cannot allow certain people to be offended anymore. Universities, which by and large are ruled by the left these days, have simply abandoned freedom of speech in practice while they still pay it lip service in ever lesser amounts.

To be sure I'm not saying all liberals (or progressives or leftists) have abandoned true freedom of speech, nor do all conservatives embrace it. There are still plenty of liberals who really will defend to their death my right to say what they disagree with while more than one conservative is in favor of freedom of speech only as long as they agree with what's being said.

I think part of the swing is that back in the 60's (the heyday of liberalism) it was the left that needed freedom of speech to express themselves and the right that clamped down; now that the left is in many ways the establishment, freedom of speech challenges the left and is needed for those on the right to express themselves.

Now that good liberals are saying that you should excercise good judgement, does this mean they'll take back all those nasty things they said about Ari Fleischer and his "watch what you say comment"?

Now that newspapers have taken the position that not offending religious sensibilities is more important than informing the public, will they support the return of the Catholic Legion of Decency? If for instance Brokeback Mountain was banned from some Midwestern town, would there be any question of the response of all those wagging their fingers at Jyllands-Posten?

Will they tell Michael Kinsley he had it all wrong:

The right to go too far and the right to put it badly may not seem like terribly crucial rights, but they are. Opening your mouth is not an exact science, and it's harder to do well if you're looking over your shoulder at the same time. Consider an analogy from libel law. The constitution protects some false statements from libel suits, not for their own sake but to give attempts to tell the truth some necessary room for error. For similar reasons, a healthy political culture has to be able to shrug off some stupid or even offensive remarks. If your main concern is not to say anything offensive or subject to misinterpretation, a lot will go unsaid that is true or even possibly wise.

Why Do You Want To Skin The Cat?

What do the homeless, brutal cops, and polluting cars have in common?

The all follow a power law distribution, not a normal distribution, and so need power law solutions according to the always interesting Malcolm Gladwell:

Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching of Chicago-school cost-benefit analysis. Even the promise of millions of dollars in savings or cleaner air or better police departments cannot entirely compensate for such discomfort.

What is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result this time?

Rome Wasn't Built Without Deadlines

There is no truth that the unofficial Boy Scout Motto is "There is no time like the last minute." It is, however, the unofficial Motto of my Boy Scout Troop. And that was before I even joined.

The View from Kurdistan

Michael Totten is writing about his trip to Northern Iraq. His first installment covers his arrival in Irbil via a direct flight from Beirut.

Better him than me.

Missing Movies

Andrew Klavan provides a list of his favorite movies this year at Libertas:

All the same, I can't help feeling a little disgruntled about the movies the Academy decided to pass over. For instance, how could they ignore Heroes In The Sand, that incredibly stirring tribute to the fighting Americans who blasted the Taliban out of Afghanistan? And what were they thinking when they slighted Reason To Live, the biting drama about a once left-wing university professor who comes under fire when he accepts Jesus Christ as his savior? And what about Goodbye, You're Out of Luck, the classy suspenser about a heroic 1950's federal investigator who breaks up a ring of homegrown Communist spies?

Danish Cartoons Self Exam

While laboring mightly on a post that examine the responses to the Danish Cartoons and the freedom of speech issues surrounding them, I asked myself would these be cartoons that I would either draw (if I could draw) or originally publish? I would have only gone with the one captioned "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins" because I think its at least funny (yes, I laugh at and have told St. Peter jokes - the ones that involve St. Peter and the Pearly Gates and people trying to get into heaven) and captures the western amazement at the thought that people who blow themselves up with innocent civilians think that the reward for such a heinous crime is an afterlife filled with sex with 39 virgins.

The others are all too bland and innocuous or inside jokes except for the one with the bomb in the turban which I don't care for because it is too general. I understand that it may be an honest representation of the cartoonists feelings -- that he associates Islam with bombers -- but I think that subject is best tackled at length so that you can make clear that only the lunatic fringe of Islam are bombers but you worry that too many of the rest are at least sympathetic to such acts. Rather than be insulted by the cartoon, Moslems should examine why so many people outside Islam worry that the lunatic fringe is Islam. Hey, if they can demand a law that nobody in the world gets to insult the prophet , I think I can make the counter demand that they act in a way that doesn't bring reproach on the prophet. And before you submit a laundry list of why you think that either the US or Christianity is just as bad as a defense, let me remind you that my dirty laundry does wash your dirty laundry clean, it just adds to the pile of dirty laundry.

But it wouldn't have been because I was worried about offending anyone. I do try to think about what I say or write before I say it and the effect it has on others, but generally I try only to change the form so that it is an inoffensive as it can be and still be an accurate reflection of what I think, but that doesn't mean that I can make it offense free. I need to curb my tongue out of love, not fear. I try to avoid being needlessly offensive [mighty big of you -- thanks]. I don't always succeed. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Black River News

For those of you interested in information about the Taum Sauk dam failure, and the cleanup of the Black River and Johnso's shut ins, Black River News, a blog by a Lesterville resident, has you covered. They point to the new Ameren Tauk Sauk website which provides additional information. I've never floated the Black River before, and I don't float near as much as I did in my youth, but the Murphy Family may have to go this year.

The Lost World

I really enjoyed Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow but I was saddend by the thought that in the world of today there are no unexplored parts of the earth anymore. Boy was I wrong as a lost "Garden of Eden" was found in Papua New Guinea.

Danish Cartoons 2 part 1

Let me try to chop up the whole Danish Cartoon affair into bitesize pieces. Part one of 2 today examining the cartoons themselves, part two of 2 examining everything else tomorrow (I hope).

The Cartoons.
They get lumped together, but there are twelve different ones of varying quality and content that were published. Most of them are simple depictions of the prophet Muhammed or poke fun at the commisioning of the cartoons themselves. Only 4 have political messages and could be considered offensive beyond just depicting the prophet in and of itself. And considering the level of discourse in the media today, the level of criticism is pretty mild. They all suffer from the problems of any single pane cartoon - they are essentially soundbites or slogans, and not a fully developed argument.

I've found essentially 3 objections to the cartoons, the first being that the commisioning itself was wrong because it would be knowingly provocative, would produce racist or anti-religious work, and had no news value. The problem is that if you think political cartoons do have merit (which by and large I don't), then it would make sense to commission them on a topic that is undercovered and provocative.

The second is that any depiction of the prophet is offensive to Moslems and therefore should be avoided. I think there is some merit in this -- and to explore it personally I need to substitute my own religions symbols and think about that case. But I also think you have to look at why there is this taboo on the depiction of the prophet Muhammed and that is to prevent the false worship of him. It seems to me that by having such a rigid taboo without the appreciation of why it leads to the very thing that it seeks to avoid in the first place. The prophet is placed on a level that no other person is allowed, and his person with Islam itself.

Perhaps my blase response to the cartoons is that I'm used to seeing critical cartoons of Jesus (who by the way isn't just a man but God when comparing what believers of both religions believe). Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, so my response as a Christian is to worry about the critic's soul, not their punishment.

The third is that by using the prophet in a political cartoon, the religion itself is attacked, and not the believers. IOW it's one thing to say that there are a few wild eyed crazy terrorsts who happen to be moslems, but another to say that Islam turns its adherents into wild eyed crazy terrorists. While this is a distinction about the point of the cartoons, I don't see it as making a real difference in the response. Why is one worse than the other? And aren't political cartoonists free to criticize a religion as well as particular adherents?

The Fake Cartoons
In addition to the twelve cartoons that were actually printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, three cartoons (here, here, and here (which as you can see are of a much insulting nature) were added by certain Danish Imams when they circulated them in Arab countries. The Imams declared that the cartoons were the work of Danes even though they hadn't been published with the others. It now appears that they have pulled a Dan Rather and have been caught peddling phonies.

The first photo is what the Imams claimed was a Danish cartoon, the second an AP photo of the winner of a French pig squealing contest discovered by who else, a blogger.

No doubt the defense will be the same, fake but accurate.

I have no idea if the imams were duped or if they made the cartoons themselves, but my BS detector votes for them being deliberate hoaxers. The only thing that argues against them drawing the fakes is this fact, pointed out by Paul Belian (linked above):

Denmark is being punished at the instigation of radical imams because twelve cartoonists have depicted Muhammad. However, these imams created their own three Muhammad images. They have even presented a French clown as being Muhammad. Because the twelve JP cartoonists are not Muslims, the Muslim blasphemy laws do not apply to them. But these laws do apply to the imams. Consequently, these imams deserve death. They – and no-one else – depicted the prophet as a pig – the highest imaginable insult in Islam.

So the response we are seeing isn't to just what was published, and given the contents of the fake cartoons, the response isn't to what was published at all, but to fake cartoons either made up or provided to radical Danish imams who then circulated them in several Arab countries.

Those are the facts. I hope to get to implications and speculations tomorrow.

Danish Cartoons

I have to admit I've been puzzled by the whole Danish Cartoon ??? I don't even know what to call it. Controversy seems too mild a word when buildings are burning and people are dying. Debacle implies that the Danish newspaper did something wrong, or at least something worse than what every other newspaper does, and that is to continue publishing political cartoons, an artform that (in the US at least) is simply wretched, worn out, and cliched. Who can take them seriously anymore? Crisis may be the best fit, but that depends on whether anything is learned or changes (on either side) or if after awhile the whole thing settles down to the status quo ante.

So how did we get here? The Brussels Journal provides a pretty good overview of the whole affair (there, I've made my decision on what to call it for now):

Do not think that by now you have heard all that there is to say about the “Danish cartoon” crisis. Last September, a Danish paper noticed that some cartoonists were frightened to depict Near Eastern topics. They seem to have sensed that being funny leads to serious trouble. So the paper made some effort to get such material. The result was twelve drawings [see them here, halfway down the page].

Some are good, others so-so. Still others are not especially funny. When perusing the material before the cartoons became the story, I thought that they depict an “Islamic type” in different situations. The best one seemed to be a scene at the gates of heaven. Incoming suicide bombers (“martyrs” if you insist) are told by the gate-keeper: “Stop, we ran out of virgins.” Another favorite is several women in burkas that follow a turbaned fellow. The rectangular eye-hole cut out of the black cloaks is transferred over the eyes of the (unenlightened?) man. In time it was discovered that the caricatures show the Prophet. That is a no-no if you are a Moslem. As time passed there was, rather than boos, a bit of protest. When it intensified, other papers reprinted the cartoons to show what the outcry is all about. Thereupon the insulted protestors defending the messenger of peace became violent. Considering that Islam claims to be a creed of mercy, peace and benevolence, its discontented are surprisingly violent. All of which makes one wonder what would happen if the faith would not have peaceful forgiveness in its core.

The contrast between the anger of those upset and the silliness of the simple cartoons can serve to distract us from the important issues confronted here -- at core what can I expect of and what can I demand of my fellow man. Normally in religion the questions are about the relations between man and God; here despite the religious angle the questions are about the relations between man and man, and the different beliefs on that subject that are informed by the overall culture, not just religion (and it can be mighty hard to separate the two). Christopher Hitchens agrees with me, just at greater length and with a different view of religion.

The fault lines are not just between West and East; there are fault lines within the West as well, and are well explored by Jeff Goldstein:
"This battle over the Danish cartoons highlights all of these philosophical dilemmas (which I have argued previously are the result of certain linguistic misunderstandings that are either cynically or idealistically perpetuated); and so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizations—which in one important sense is a clash between theocratic Islamism and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and its own structural thinking, brought on by years of insinuation into our philosophy of what is, at root, collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chain—could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize."
Actually, I think that arguments in the abstract don't cause anyone but college professors to get excited; it takes something simple and concrete like satirical cartoons to set everyman's heart to pounding.

I expect there are fault lines within the East as well, its just as a man of the West I'm not the best judge of them.

And I have to wonder, with all the provocations to chose from, why this one?

Another view is that the cartoons are an excerise in racism, freedom-of-speech a dodge to hide it, and that the Prophet Muhammad is not a current figure who would be an appropriate target for political cartoonists. Apparently symbolism is lost on some people.

Cassandra, not surprisingly, has girded her loins for intellectual battle:

Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than the Danish cartoon kerfuffle. But for all the overwrought fulmination about freedom of expression, what the Coalition of the Outraged hate to admit is that unfettered speech in the Western world is more sentimental fiction than reality. By law and by custom, Western society has always recognized all sorts of limits on the right to speak freely. A notable example is the fighting words exception to the First Amendment, which recognizes that certain words and ideas are so inflammatory that society's interest in maintaining order outweighs the individual's right to express himself without limitation. Another, the criminalization of 'hate speech', places paramount value on the feelings of certain identity groups while allowing others to be insulted or attacked with impugnity. A third, cultural bugaboos, are equally problematic in that they allow rappers to casually drop words like 'nigger' but mandate that everyone else use silly euphenisms like 'the n-word' as surrogates for an appellation so shocking that only the pigmentally gifted may utter it without rending the fabric of the universe in twain.

So it would appear that protestations to the contrary, our own tolerance for free speech has definite limits. The question then becomes not, "Does a free society recognize any limitation on speech?". Of course it does. The sticking point becomes "Where do we draw the line, and who gets to draw it?" And therein lies the rub. The mainstream media regularly exercise self-restraint... but only when it suits them. As I observed earlier regarding the JCS controversy, media self-censorship is at best a hypocritical exercise:

And as far as the cowardly response of the American Press to spare our delicate sensiblilities by not showing the cartoons, what am I as a Christian to learn? That there is a double standard when handling Islam or Christianity? That we would be better off killing abortionists, blowing up abortion clinics, burning down movie theaters that show movies like Dogma or The Last Temptation of Christ, offing Dick Wolff or any other TV producer when he shows Christians in a negative light, or anyone else who disrespects us because then we would get respect? Then would our feelings would taken seriously? We'll never know, will we, because we woulnd't be Christians if we did. There's an idea for a movie - The Latest Tempation of a Christian.

Maybe, just maybe we should applaud some obscure Danish newpaper for having the audacity to commission cartoons these cartoons, and by doing so have caused not just turmoil in Islamic lands but soul searching in Western lands . We live in interesting times.

The Mediocre Bowl

The game was mediocre, the ads were mediocre, the halftime show was mediocre -- only the officiating stood out, and not in a good way.

I should be happy that the game wasn't lousy, like so many Super Bowl's before it, but recently the games have been better. The Steelers managed three good plays, all for touchdowns, and won the game. The Seahawks managed to move the ball but couldn't score - thanks more to the officials than the Steelers (although some lousy receivers didn't help).

The talking heads of course kept telling us the game could get better - they might just have well made the same appeal to keep watching based on the ads. And what game were Michaels and Madden watching? The same one as the officials? Madden thought Tampa Bay was in the Super Bowl this year, and Michaels couldn't tell his left from his right.

AB can be counted on to provide most of the good ads, and this year was no exception. They cover a variety of genres - funny, touching, battle of the sexes, etc.

The Burger King ad, notwithstanding Brook Burke, was creepy just like all their ads lately. I love the food at Burger King, but why oh why have they always had such lousy ads - including the worst ever campaign, Where's Herb?

And the Fed-Ex ad? I'm hoping the lamebrain who OK'ed that one get's stomped on by a giant foot too. And what is goDaddy.com? It sure looks like a porn site from the ad. What exactly do busty women have to do with domain names?

Was I the only one rooting for Phillip Seymour Hoffman in the MI:3 ad? If my choice is between Phil and Tom, Phil wins every time. You better believe I think you'd do it Phil.

What was up with the Dancing with the Stars ad wondering if you were hoping for a wardrobe malfunction? Didn't Kelly Monaco have a wardrobe malfunction but won the competition on the strength of the judges votes, and not the public's votes? Maybe the public wants to see good dancing, which is much harder to find that naked breasts (I'd start with goDaddy).

How much money did ABC forego to pitch their own shows? Anybody beside Lorne Michaels think Sons & Daughters is going to be funny? Somehow I don't think they managed to pick only the unfunny bits for the ads.

I'm all in favor of having a single great rock act do the halftime show. U2 did it best in 2002, but they have all been better than the old style of having a bunch of current acts run around and do each other's songs. While I'm amazed at what great shape Mic Jagger is in at his age, it would have been better if the Stones had done the show 20 years ago.

I can't believe that was the best officiating crew in the NFL. They stank. Did they all bet on the Steelers are something? Usually lousy crews screw both teams; in this game they managed to do in the Seahawks (not that they needed much help). I especially liked the call on Hasselback for blocking below the waist on what was really an outstanding tackle on his part. And I often complain (just ask my son who has to endure my ranting during games) about how the refs never call offensive pass interference -- guys like Randy Moss push off every play. So I was happy they flagged Seattle for it until I saw the replay -- he knocks the defense backs hands off himself and he's flagged? NFL, you need to fix your officiating.

All in all, what a waste of a few hours. Of course, I'll waste them again next year.

Blogging Kevins

I think it was Kevin Drum who started it, and then Kevin Aylward and Kevin McGhee picked it up, and after several years I figured I might as well give Blogging Kevins a try. Only one problem - there are a lot more bloggers out there now, Kevins included, so if I left you off, sorry.

This Kevin examines switchgrass as an alternative energy source because someone whispered it in his ear.

This Kevin reports that the United Farm Workers is a scam in the post Cesar Chavez era (without mentioning the quote about how every American crusade turns into a racket).
This Kevin reads a lot of books and reviews a pair of books about finance for the younger and the older crowd.

This Kevin explains why he doesn't bother watching the State of the Union Address.

This Kevin addresses the current Danish Cartoon Controversy.

This Kevin discovers why GM is hemorrhaging money.

This Kevin examines DRM in the UK.

This Kevin wonders what if people were run like large businesses?

This Kevin doesn't think highly of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

This Kevin looks at the final frontier of digital connectedness.

This Kevin responds to the response to the State of the Union Address.

This Kevin is back in the blog saddle again.

This Kevin finds a different Islamic reaction to the Danish cartoons.

This Kevin runs the Carnival of Trackbacks.

This Kevin still has a photoblog.

This Kevin looks at the gender distribution of the new President of Chile's cabinet.

This Kevin laments he spends too much time with work and not enough with his wife.

This Kevin wishes us all a Happy Hannakwanzaramadamas from Las Vegas.

This Kevin looks at another alternative fuel use of grass.

This Kevin describes communicating concepts through comics.

This Kevin wonders why congress doesn't provide a tax deduction for HDTV as long as they are mandating an end to analog.

This Kevin wonders if anyone is reading Infinite Crisis?.

This Kevin tells us what the State Department really said about those Danish cartoons.

This Kevin reviews everything he buys, including bread, burgers, and smokes.

This Kevin has the latest Tetris DS images.

This Kevin alerts us to a drink mix site just in time for the Superbowl.

This Kevin stresses the importance of silence.

This Kevin writes about communities, journalists, and stories and isn't surprised traditional journalism is losing its audience.

This Kevin is convinced that Flash is your friend in Web 2.0.

This Kevin wakes up and decides that with all that's happened he doesn't want to get out of bed.

This Kevin reports the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is suing AT&T for cooperating with the NSA.

This Kevin thinks his candid blog is more compelling than if he self censored to avoid conflicts of interest.

This Kevin thinks American Idol may have gone a little too far for him.

This Kevin loves the guitar he bought on ebay.

This Kevin reports on the the removal of Cindy Sheehan from the gallery before the State of the Union Address.

This Kevin reports that iTunes isn't just for music and video anymore, it's for learning too.

This Kevin lists his great moments in the war on idiotism.

This Kevin is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

This Kevin quotes Lord Baden-Powell, founder of the Boyscouts.

This Kevin let's us know how to handle medical receptionists.

Yes, we are more eclectic than ever.

File Under Just Plain Stupid

I know that there are those who think the title sums up this entire blog, but for a change I'm not being self-depreciating. Actually, the title could just have been only the truth can be this bizarre or something similar and been just as accurate.

Michael Yon [full disclosure, I've hit his tip jar once] is a freelance reporter who as ex-special forces actually understands what he's reporting about in a war zone. And he's unabashedly pro-soldier. He took one of the most famous pictures of the war so far, an American soldier cradling a dying Iraqi child following a terrorist attack. You'd think the Army would play nice with him, but you'd be wrong. The trouble is that the Army distributed his photo as if it were theirs, which cost him a chunk of change and respect. When he complained to the army about it and asks for recompense, they told him, I kid you not, that the liability waver he signed in order to be imbedded -- which basically said if anything happened to him, he knew the risks going in and it wasn't the Army's fault -- covered any harm he suffered from the Army distributing his photo, and that furthermore by uploading it to a government server he had an implied license agreement that the Army could do whatever they wanted with it. There's no call to insult the man after you rip him off.

Now if that weren't weird enough, Yon has asked Senator Ted Kennedy to help him with the matter (Yon's current home base is Massachusetts). Talk about the odd couple.

UPDATE: The Army comes to it's senses -- OK, the dispute got the attention of General Brooks (the ultra smooth briefer of CENTCOM in the high tech media center in Qatar back during the invasion phase of OIF) who had a competent lawyer examine the dispute. So now everybody's happy, and Senator Kennedy can leave his pants off for another night of carousing instead of working late on Mr. Yon's complaint. Thanks to Kevin at Pundit Review for the heads up.