Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons of Muhammad

12 people were recently killed in a cowardly terrorist attack on the office of the French satirical newspaper "Charlie Hebdo".    These are the cartoons of Muhammad / Mohammad / that supposedly caused the bombing. 


Compared to works like "Piss Christ", or portraits of the Virgin Mary made of elephant manure, they're pretty tame. 

Has it occurred to anyone else that the more tolerant of religious criticism a society becomes, the more religion tends to flourish there? 

For instance, you can go to New York City and see a musical play where a copy of The Book Of Mormon gets shoved up a Mormon missionary's ass.  The Mormon Church is flourishing in the USA. 

Ditto for most other religions. 

Go figure.  Let's hope France responds with increased satire and liberty, and not with calls for censorship disguised as sensitivity. 

Monday, December 23, 2013

Nathan Allen calls for higher standards in Climate Change discussion

A Fascist Chemist named Nathan Allen has taken to The Huffington Post to question why all media outlets don't follow the lead of the L.A. Times and Science/Reddit, and simply ban all Climate Change Skeptics from having their voices heard.  Here's a slice:

Like our commenters, professional climate change deniers have an outsized influence in the media and the public. And like our commenters, their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality. As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral.
So if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?

I hope you'll read the whole thing.  It's a beautiful example of the totalitarian mind at work. 

But to respond to Nathan Allen's question....  Is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages proficiently? 

Here's Al Gore, stating that the Arctic Sea will be ice-free in 2013.   Hit the link. 

Here's one from a couple of years later, making the same claim, but sliding back the deadline by two years. 




Here's the 2005 U.N. Climate Change Refugee Map,  showing the places likely to be underwater by....2010. 



And here's a comparison of the current trendlines and compared to the Climate Change models.  Canada only.  (You can hit the link for more.) 


So yes.  Tighter standards are indeed in order. 
Nathan, how long are you going to keep swallowing this crap? 

Monday, November 18, 2013

Frank Zappa on "Having A Strong Military"

Here's rocker Frank Zappa on the need for a strong military.  Or not. 


And here's some Zappa vs The U.S. Senate.  The Goracle shows up around the 7:00 minute mark.  (His ex-wife, Tipper, was a Zappa enemy, and was probably responsible for this show trial.) 

 

Friday, September 27, 2013

On "discriminatory, inflammatory, lewd, and racial remarks in public"

For the first time ever, the Tarrant County Libertarian Party is going to participate in the Fort Worth Gay Pride Week parade. 
It's going to be a good time at a great event.  Go here to see our Meetup page about building the float, parade details, and the like. 

Last night, my friend Ken Stanford and I went to the gay/lesbian church where they held the organizational meeting.  (I believe that one lady thought we were romantic partners....not that there's anything wrong with that.)  It was a good group of people. 

The organizers spent a lot of time explaining how we should all behave.  There have been some Baptist preacher-types protesting at past events.  One of these Witch Doctors even went so far as to stick a bullhorn in the face of the mayor of Fort Worth.  They try to get a negative reaction from the gays and lesbians so they can post the pics and videos online and show their congregations how they're defending All Things Holy from the gay folks.  A few arrests were made, and some of the protesters did jail time, which they probably see as a badge of honor. 

Joel Burns, one of our City Councilmen, happens to be of the gay persuasion, and Joel usually rides in this parade.  After the bad incidents with the preachers a few years ago, Joel and the mayor (and I'm probably getting a few of the details wrong here) introduced a Zero Tolerance Ordinance that includes "protection from discriminatory, inflammatory, lewd, and racial remarks in public."  Also, "the use of bullhorns will not be permitted in the downtown area".  The Thought Police police department will be enforcing all of these regulations on the day of the parade.  (All of that is from the parade organizer info.) 

Dammit, I've got two bullhorns. 

I was planning on making good use of them to support the Marriage Equality cause.  Now I can't. 

IMHO, this is what usually happens when you try to protect people from opinions.  Dissent gets stifled. 
Yeah, I cannot stand fundamentalist nimrods who try to force everyone to live by the rules in their magic books. 
No, people shouldn't be allowed to stick bullhorns in your face, violate your space, or physically threaten you. 
But asking government to protect you from opposing points of view, like "discriminatory remarks" doesn't help your cause.  Never, ever, ever. 

If you've read this far and disagree, do you think I should have the right to call some people "fundamentalist nimrods", like I did a few sentences ago?  If you think that Barack Obama isn't very smart, should you be allowed to say so?  What about Rick Perry?  Where does it end? 

Anyway, we're going to have a good time at this thing.  Anybody who wants to marry another adult should be allowed to do so, and I really don't care if I've offended you with that statement, or if you think it's inflammatory. 

 Saturday, October 5th.  Hit this link if you want to help out. 





 

Monday, October 1, 2012

Ryan Sheffield's 12 Political Compromises

My Bar Friend Ryan Sheffield has put a list of "12 Political Compromises" on Facebook.  This is his governmental wish list. 

As a side note, Ryan is one of those creative people who can do just about anything he wants to do.  Go here to view (and purchase) some of his artwork, mostly drawings of authors that incorporate their quotations.  I think I've used the Twain and the Hunter S. Thompson to liven up posts on this site a few times. 
Go here to download (no purchase required) his two e-books.  I've read some of his stories, and they're good stuff. 

IMHO, Ryan is very close to the Kingdom Of God, i.e., the Libertarian Party, with this list.  My additional commentary is in italics.  Here goes:

1. Repeal Citizens United. You would be hard-fought to find any normal citizen who thinks it’s a good idea for corporations, labor unions and special interest groups to have an unfettered cashflow into political campaigns. It doesn’t matter what “side” you are on, you should probably oppose Big Money syndicates controlling the election process and fueling the obnoxious TV commercials you are being bombarded with every day.

Why do we have big corporations and super-pacs giving a rip who gets elected?  Well, to produce a successful product, you have to convince millions of citizens to purchase the product.  That's the hard way.  The easy way is to get Congress to mandate the use, purchase, or monopolization of the product.  Corporations want protection from competitors.  In a nation with a massive government, it's far more effective to purchase one Congressman that to sell to 330 million Americans.  Here's something from the Cato Institute:
The proper answer to large expenditures for speech is either more speech or, if the existing system proves unworkable, a constitutional amendment. As for money, it's just a symptom. We have a big money problem because we have a big government problem. By restraining the regulatory and redistributive powers of the state, we can minimize the influence of big money. Restoring the Framers' notion of enumerated, delegated, and limited federal powers will get government out of our lives and out of our wallets. That's the best way to end the campaign-finance racket, and root out corruption without jeopardizing political speech.

In other words, if it really matters who wins the elections, your government has gotten too big.  If governments can mandate profits for favored corporations, government has gotten waaaay too big. 

2. Close the “Revolving Door” and shut lobbyists out of government. This is an extension of number 1. Again, no one wants these organizations, right or left, buying and bribing politicians or running their own regulatory agencies. Politicians work for us, not the highest bidder.

Once again, lobbyists are just a symptom.  They're not the disease.  If the government matters enough to justify the hiring of lobbyists, the government has gotten too big. 

3. End the “War on Drugs.” This doesn’t mean we have to legalize EVERYTHING, but this “war” is a bottomless money pit and a failed experiment. It is the reason the violent cartels exist and the reason your idiot son is snorting bath salts in your basement.

Precisely.  Exactly.  Ever since Nixon began the War On Drugs in 1970, the only drug whose use has declined is....tobacco.  That's because tobacco is legal and no longer cool.  
There are a few antibiotics that should possibly be restricted because unfettered use causes viruses to mutate and grow stronger.  
Everything else?  Well, ask yourself which currently illegal drugs you want the Mexican and Afghan Drugs Lords to have a monopoly on. 

4. Stop treating the environment as a partisan issue. The environment SHOULD be something we all agree on. It affects us all equally. As long as free enterprise exists, there must be checks & balances on pollution, deforestation and animal cruelty. This is not “socialism.” It’s the necessary price business owners must pay for the ability to run operations that affect our natural surroundings and resources. The beautiful but unrealistic Libertarian idea that simply boycotting polluters will solve the problem is a pipe dream. Especially if the public is unaware they are polluting in the first place (or simply doesn’t care.) We need to agree on what “facts and science” are and deal with the problems accordingly. Present “free market” alternatives. That is healthy and good. But accept science before you make suggestions. Economic freedom doesn’t make toxic waste taste any better.

The environment is a classic economic "externality".  You want to purchase powder-coated metal parts from me, so I powder-coat the parts.  You give me money.  I give you painted parts.  We're the only two people involved in the deal.  But not if I dump a lot of leftover zinc and iron-phosphate into the Trinity River.  Then a lot of other people become a party to our deal.  That's called an "externality". 

The classic Anarchist position in this case is to boycott the polluters.  The classic Libertarian position, however, is to sue the shit out of them if they have done YOU harm.  (Plus, all environmental regulations should be voted on by Congress, not enforced by appointees.)  Go here and here for two more excellent Cato downloads on how we could help the environment, lower the bureaucratic costs, and also let manufacturing businesses prosper. 

5. Audit the Federal Reserve and, preferably, abolish it. A private banking organization with no oversight or accountability should NOT be in charge of the nation’s economy. Central banks were never a good idea. But private and secret central banks are even worse.

Oh yes, yes, yes, Mr. Sheffield.  Yes, yes, yes.  And when we End The Fed, let's level all their buildings and plow salt into the earth where they stood so nothing will ever grow there again. 
The Fed was founded in 1913 to stabilize the money supply.  Since 1913, the dollar has lost 97% of its value. 

6. Legalize gay marriage. It doesn’t affect you. Just let it happen, move on, and turn your attention to issues that actually affect us all.

Yeah.  If God doesn't like gay people, why does he keep making so many of them? 

7. Disrupt and destroy the partisan divide. We are all screwed if this extreme partisanship continues to divide us. The culture of the American media has made it impossible for us to discuss issues and make progress. The main source of this problem? Pigeonholing. If someone asks you if you support the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, for the other partisans), your answer should be nuanced and thought-out and should NEVER place you squarely in a political party. The common practice of assuming what “side” someone is on based on a single opinion is the MOST destructive aspect of our modern political culture.

In my opinion, we have so much extreme partisanship and a partisan divide because the only choice we have is between two partisans.  You can pick the Crips or the Bloods.  I've commented on this dozens of times elsewhere, but let's say the Crips and Bloods are the only parties to hold office for the last 75 years.  They both advocate slavery, puppy torture, and poor dental hygiene.  But the Bloods have a better position on Healthcare. 

So you always support the Bloods.  Otherwise the Crips will win.  If a 3rd gang (The Libertarians) comes along advocating an end to slavery, puppy torture, and are pro-brushing and flossing, they're written off as a wasted vote.  They might help the dreaded Crips win !!  So what's the solution?  How do we end all of this partisanship of Us vs Them? 

Through a system of approval voting.  Go here for an explanation.  It would allow most of us to comfortably step outside the Us and Them boxes and safely try out some other points of view. 

8. Recognize that gun control is like drug control. They will always exist and banning them only makes them more dangerous. People have a Constitutional right to arm themselves and threatening to take that right away only makes the loony “patriot” gun nuts all the more rabid and frothing at the mouth for their insurrection fantasies. Compromise: Don’t sell assault rifles at K-Mart. Gun store owners are always going to be more scrutinizing than a 16-year-old making minimum wage at a big box store.

I became a rabid 2nd Amendment nutcase when one of my co-managers brought in plans for a WWI-era machine gun that we could make at the shop.  I totally understood those blueprints, and I'm a borderline mechanical idiot.  Ryan is correct.  Guns aren't going away if someone like me can make one. 
I don't have insurrection fantasies, but do have the fears.  I now sometimes carry a gun, because cops are too dang heavy. 

9. Remove the words “socialism” and “capitalism” from the healthcare debate. It should be universally considered the “noble” goal to provide affordable healthcare for all American citizens. The road to that goal is (and SHOULD be) up for debate, but the endgame should not. The question is how to pay for it and how to ensure that quality of care (and personal decision-making power) do not decrease. It’s going to be difficult to sort out, but it’s hard for me to believe that there is anyone in America who does not think it’s a positive thing for everyone to have healthcare. “Healthcare is not a right.” You’re correct. Now let’s sit down and figure out how to make it one in a way that we can all agree on. If your opinion on healthcare is little more than “I support the President because he’s a Democrat like me” or “I dang’ol hate commies!,” you should probably stop voting.

I think that true Capitalist Healthcare has never been tried.  Here's my modest proposal.  If this became the system in an 8-block Free Market Zone someplace south of downtown, people would be flying in from all over the state for treatment.  And I think this would meet Ryan's criteria of a noble solution for a noble goal.  Hit the link. Please. 
But I do like the word "capitalism", because when regulators and Nanny-Staters allow unbridled acts of capitalism to take place, capitalism usually works.  Lap Band surgery and Lasik eye surgeries have become 80% less expensive, mostly because Medicare, Medicaid and insurance policies don't cover them. 

10. All censorship is wrong. A message to the left wing: All speech must be permitted, even what most would consider “hate.” I’m sorry. Free speech is an “all or nothing” issue. We can never open the door for authority to tell us what we can and can’t say or express. A message for the right wing: Seriously, just think about it. Is it really worse for your kid to see a naked lady than it is for them to witness a mass murder? Obviously not, if you’ve ever watched primetime TV. Get your priorities straight.

Here's a Ryan Sheffield print.  It's gonna be the first one I order:


11. Recognize that nearly every one of those infographics, chain emails, or biased news articles you share with your friends is chock-full of misinformation, omission, and partisan agendas. Yes, even the ones that agree with your position. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Mark Twain

That's why I probably won't watch the (ahem) debate between The Obamneys.  Much truthiness will be thrown around that's half-right, half-wrong, manipulated, and taken totally out of the original context.
 
My questions about the infographics, chain emails, news articles and partisan agendas usually come down to this...  a) Does this person want to leave me and everyone else alone? b) Does this person's agenda promote or discourage ethnic, racial, or national Tribalism?
Nothing else matters. 

12. Talk to each other. Stop being so goddamn clique-y with your politics. Talk to someone who disagrees with you without letting the debate devolve into a talking points recitation contest. We need more open minds, less partisan cheerleading. I feel like I’m watching a word-war between Crips and Bloods who haven’t yet realized that the only thing dividing them is the color of bandana they wear.

Sorry, I’ll shut up now.  

Some of my responses were old talking points and some were new. 

Sorry about breaking Ryan's post down into a word-war between Crips and Bloods and Libertarians. 

The LP bandana is red and blue with porcupines on it.  

I'll shut up too.  At least until tomorrow morning.  

Be sure to hit the links at the top for Ryan Sheffields art and stories !!   

Sunday, September 16, 2012

For all Civil Libertarians: Why Barack Obama should resign

I can't believe the stupid sonofabitch actually did this. 
He went to the residence of an American citizen to stage a Pro-Theocracy photo-op. 

Go here.  Written by a respected law professor. 
“Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”


When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.
Why are the streets not packed with angry mobs with pitchforks and torches??

This is the picture that should cost Obama his job.  End of story. 


You know what?  I didn't particularly like the art installation known as "Piss Christ".  I didn't like the painting of the Virgin Mary made of elephant crap.  I didn't like Michael Moore's movie "Capitalism".  (It should've been called "Mercantilism", or maybe "Too Big To Fail".)  I don't like the Richter mirror hanging in the Dallas Museum Of Art.  I think it's a ripoff. 
Here's another dirty little secret:  I didn't like the new Batman movie. 

In the USA, we don't bring this stuff up for a vote.  If someone creates something we don't like, we don't try to have the creators silenced.  We DO and we SHOULD keep them from getting any government funding, but that should apply to everybody. 

Is Barack now going to go after everyone who submitted art for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"? 

If you don't have the right to offend, you don't have the right to speak. 

What a despicable, pitiful little man. 

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Ray Bradbury, R.I.P.

We lost Ray Bradbury this morning.  Dang it. 


Someone calling himself "Kip Russell" (a Heinlein character, I think) wrote this in the comments of a Sci-Fi appreciation site:

Somewhere in America, a boy tap-dances a on a tuned segment of discarded wooden sidewalk, calling his friends to run over the hills by moonlight...

Out on the Veldt, the animals pause for a moment, as though something unseen had passed through their midst...

Somewhere on Mars, a new silver fire is burning to welcome him...

By the river, a Book stops it's recitation for the day, to remember a fine man who wrote such fine, fine things.

Thanks be, for Ray Bradbury, who taught me that there could be poetry in prose.

I think that's the best anyone will ever say it.  If you don't know much about Bradbury's stuff, check this one out.  Best anti-censorship book ever written. 
 


Wednesday, April 4, 2012

In defense of Trolls

From Gizmodo:

Trolling could get you 25 years in jail in Arizona

One of the Internet's basic tenets—the right to be as much of a myopic, infantile asshat as humanly possible—is currently under attack in Arizona. A sweeping update to the state's telecommunications harrasment bill could make naughty, angry words a Class 1 misdemeanor. Or worse.

They just don't get it, do they?  Can you imagine how many lawyers, judges, counselors, central planners, nanny state gremlins, and other parasites it would take to enforce this?  Never mind.  Maybe they do get it.  That's probably the point.  Jobs, jobs, jobs. 

It's a dangerous precedent, yet another bill written and supported by legislators who fundamentally don't understand the nature of the internet. And I'm not just being a, well, you know.
Arizona House Bill 2549 passed both legislative houses last Thursday and is now awaiting approval from Arizona's governor Brewer. The statute states that:

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person."
Emphasis added. If the electronic devices and means are employed to stalk a victim, the penalty bumps up to a Class 3 felony.

You do not have a right to be free from annoyances.  And just because you're offended doesn't mean you are right.  Hell, in the Starbucks where I'm sitting right now, I'm annoyed by the music, and I'm offended by the ear disc-thingys that the barista is using to deform his lobes.  Yeah, I'm equivocating between different meanings of those words, but plaintiffs and their lawyers will do the exact same thing.  Get ready for it if this thing passes. 

For those not intimately familiar with Arizona penal law, a Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by a $2,500 fine and up to six months in jail (it's the most aggressive misdemeanor charge the state can bring). A Class 3 felony, meanwhile, carries a minimum sentence of 2.5 years for non-dangerous offenders with no prior record. And a max of 25 years in jail.



Opponents of the bill argue that the wording is overly broad and could easily be interpreted to include not just one-on-one communications but public forums like 4Chan, Reddit, and anywhere else that allows commenting. You thought the banhammer was bad? Try handcuffs.

Anyone who doesn't want to encounter Annoying Offensiveness in all its forms can stay off of Facebook, websites, Reddit, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's comment fields.  The only other options are 1) go along with the Central Planners, or 2) prepare to be annoyed and offended, or in the case of proprietary sites 3) turn off your comment option.  Who knows best how to handle this?  Each site owner, or the Central Planners of The Peoples' Republic of Arizona?   
I think the best option is this...."My site, my rules." 

It could also have a chilling effect on free speech by prohibiting shocking or "profane" language online. And since the bill stipulates that the offense only has to occur on Arizona soil (since a Facebook comment is definitely a geographic place, right?) that basically puts the entire Internet on notice.

Yep. 

The bill's supporters argue that the steps are necessary to prevent online bullying. Despite the public outcry, the bill has seen very little resistance from elected officials. However, given how well Arizona's other recent, short-lived, and generally draconian propositions—-including its racial profiling, anti-gay adoption, and anti-immigration bills—-have fared, House Bill 2549 might not be a law for long, assuming Governor Brewer even signs it.

This is nothing but grandstanding for the voters who don't consider unintended consequences.  Nobody likes being annoyed or offended.  Most people know that there's nothing that the Arizona legislature can do about it. 

In the mean time, feel free to leave your thoughts on the matter on Brewer's Facebook page. You know, while it's still legal. 

The internet can be a wide-open, freewheeling place.  Or the Central Planners can inflict their vision on it.  Pick a side. 

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Wikipedia and Reddit go Galt.

Go to Wikipedia.  They've shut it down. 
Go to Reddit.  They've shut it down. 
Go to Google.  It's still up, but they have a black "Censored" bar over their logo. 

In protest against Texas Republican Lamar Smith's anti-piracy law, these companies have "Gone Galt".  (If you're not familiar with the Galt concept, look it up on Wikipedia tomorrow.  Not today.  Wikipedia has gone Galt. 

This is what democracy looks like. 

Here's a link to Lamar Smith's website.  He's the author of the now-infamous SOPA bill (Stop Online Piracy Act.)  Piracy being potentially defined as stuff the government doesn't like. 

As of January 18th, there's some hilarious crap on Smith's site about job creation: "We know what will help create jobs in this country –lifting the burden of regulations that is strangling small businesses."   Good work today, Lamar. 

Here's a link to the site of the Libertarian who ran against this Statist last time.  James Strohm. 


Sign came from here

Thursday, July 15, 2010

The Old Media is not happy with The New Media. Government must intervene.

From The New York Times, via Reason magazine's Hit & Run blog:

Google says it only tweaks its algorithm to improve its searches. Some Web sites that have accused Google of unfair placing are merely collections of links with next to no original content of their own, precisely the kind of sites that Google’s search algorithm screens out to better answer queries....Still, the potential impact of Google’s algorithm on the Internet economy is such that it is worth exploring ways to ensure that the editorial policy guiding Google’s tweaks is solely intended to improve the quality of the results and not to help Google’s other businesses....

Full disclosure, before I go any further into this rant.  Google owns Blogger/Blogspot.  It doesn't cost me a dime to use Blogger/Blogspot.  And when I put Google ads on my site, my traffic from Google searches increased by about 50%. 
In my arrogant opinion, that's nobody's business but mine and Google's. 
For reasons that I don't understand, this site is now one of the top search results for pictures of Macaulay Culkin.  Do I have the best pictures of Macaulay Culkin?  I don't know or care.  But people are using Google to find them here.  If they don't like what Google and I provide, they can use Yahoo.  Or Bing.  Or Dogpile.  I don't think anyone has ever put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to use Google. 

Now, let's continue....

Some early suggestions for how to accomplish this include having Google explain with some specified level of detail the editorial policy that guides its tweaks. Another would be to give some government commission the power to look at those tweaks.

Oh God.  Some idiot wants a government commission to look into the problem. 
And finally....

....if Google is to continue to be the main map to the information highway, it concerns us all that it leads us fairly to where we want to go.

Reason magazine's Peter Suderman, of course, politely suggests that The New York Times and The United States government butt the hell out of Google's succesful business model. 
Mr. Suderman doesn't take it far enough. 
Let's re-write that last sentence from the NYT:

....if The New York times is to continue to be the biggest newspaper in the Dead Tree Media, it concerns us all that they give us balanced information, or at least an admission of Statist bias, in everything they publish. 

We need a government commission to look at the statist, lefty bias of the New York Times.  We need to be sitting in on their editorial board meetings.  We need the power to preview every article they publish, with an eye toward detecting favoritism toward their preferred politicians, causes, and advertisers. 
Granted, nobody forces anyone to purchase The New York Times.
But that's not the point.  They're successful.  If they're successful, they're powerful.  If they're powerful, we need to be able to control them. 

Dammit, somebody, somewhere is reading things that somebody else doesn't like. 

Government must intervene. 

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

A new goal

I have many, many goals to achieve in my remaining years of life. 

One of them is to make it onto this list. 

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day !

Welcome to the first annual "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" event. 
Ever since the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who dared to make a movie critical of Islam, ever since the death threats against Mohammed-drawing Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, which have led to his forced retirement, and ever since the censoring of Muhammad-drawing Matt Stone and Trey Parker (of South Park fame) by the craven execs at Comedy Central, well, something had to be done. 


Somebody came up with the idea of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.   Hit the link. 


The idea behind it?  Solidarity.  Plus, if everybody draws Mohammed, they probably won't kill us all. 


Well, the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. 

Here's my pic.  It's a fairly reverent depiction of Mohammed's trip to Jerusalem, the trip he made on the back of a flying horse that had the face of an angel. 



Attacking iconoclasts (meant here in its literal meaning) has been a constant throughout human history. It's one of the great dividing lines, like laughter and face-to-face copulation, that separates man from beast. Indeed, I'm betting it was a fundamental element of even pre-human history. Can we doubt seriously that some gang of Neanderthals didn't crush the skulls of others who decorated cave walls in "offensive" ways? In the 20th and 21st centuries alone, all sorts of human expression have led to brutality and murder. The ground of Europe and Asia and all the continents with the (possible) exception of Antarctica is fertilized with the blood and bones of martyrs who have done nothing more than make tangible their thoughts in words, music, and pictures. Yet even in a country like ours that threatens consenting adults for making dirty movies with effective life sentences, or in European countries where speech codes imprison malefactors for "hate speech," there is a massive gulf between "mere" censorship and death threats, between the answering of "bad" speech not with more speech but with the blade, the bullet, or the bomb.


This amateurish image was created by Islamic imams and depicts Mohammed as a pedophile. They have defiled their own tradition. There comes a point in any society's existence where it must ultimately, to paraphrase Martin Luther (who himself was more than happy to see opponents put to death), dig in its heels and say here we stand, we will do no other. We don't need to be perfectly consistent philosophically or historically or theologically to assert what is special and unique not just about the United States, with its bizarre and wonderful articulation of the First Amendment, but the greater classical liberal project comprising not just the "West" (whatever that is) but human beings in whatever town, country, or planet they inhabit. And at the heart of the liberal project is ultimately a recognition that individuals, for no other reason than that they exist, have rights to continue to exist. Embedded in all that is the right to expression. No one has a right to an audience or even to a sympathetic hearing, much less an engaged audience. But no one should be beaten or killed or imprisoned simply for speaking their mind or praying to one god as opposed to the other or none at all or getting on with the small business of living their life in peaceful fashion. If we cannot or will not defend that principle with a full throat, then we deserve to choke on whatever jihadists of all stripes can force down our throats.

This is not about U.S. foreign policy, or trade policy, or aid to Israel or Egypt, or the creation of a Palestinian homeland. This is about the right to have the conversations that might inform all that and more. We live in a time of paradox: Never before have so many been so empowered to speak their own minds, to produce and consume whatever form of expression when they want, where they want. The impact on those seeking to regulate and control thought is as predictable as it is depressing and, ultimately, ineffective: Whether they are governments or corporations or religious or ideological groups, they want to stamp out the ability of people to say and think for themselves.

Our Draw Mohammed contest is not a frivolous exercise of hip, ironic, hoolarious sacrilege toward a minority religion in the United States (though even that deserves all the protection that the most serioso political commentary commands). It's a defense of what is at the core of a society that is painfully incompetent at delivering on its promise of freedom, tolerance, and equal rights. It's a rebuttal to the notion that we should go limp in the clinches precisely because bullies and bastards can punch or blow us up.

Well said.  Hope you like the picture. 

Sunday, May 9, 2010

In which the FCC seeks to regulate the internet

This is from the Denver Post:

Whenever people start talking about regulating the Internet, it gives us pause.
Why would you want to regulate a communications and economic platform that has been such a roaring success and has had so few problems?

Well....
1)  The government is filled with Student Council-type control freaks
2)  The government has absolutely nothing to fear from the mainstream media (and yes, this includes the dreaded Fox News) but the internet has proven to be an effective means of exposing government skullduggery. 
3)  All other forms or unnecessary government regulation have created more government jobs.  This regulatory project would do the same.   
So the announcement last week by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski that the agency planned to assert authority over the Internet raises all kinds of red flags.


Hell yes, it raises red flags.  Every street in America should look like one of Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution Rallies. 
But then, we are a sedate lot, and don't like to be alarmed until the wolf is at the door, or in some cases, until the wolf is blocking our view of American Idol.  You can hit the link up top to read the rest of the Denver Post piece, but you get the idea.  
Here's Harry Browne on government regulations in general and the FCC in particular:

There's absolutely no reason to have a Federal Communications Commission.

We don't need the FCC to apportion limited broadcast frequencies, because private companies will always find a way to accommodate whatever the market wants and needs.
We don't need the FCC to protect one company from infringing on another's frequency, because we already have police and courts who are supposed to protect property rights.
And we certainly don't need the FCC to protect us from people like Janet Jackson and Howard Stern, because private initiative has given us the remote control — the all-purpose self-censoring device that can keep out of our homes anything we find offensive.

I doubt that a single child's life was destroyed by the 1-second view of Janet Jackson's breast.
But I'm sure that thousands of careers, tons of good entertainment, and billions of dollars have been sacrificed to the Great God of Government Regulation.

It's time to free the airwaves.
It's time to junk the FCC.


The red flag pic came from here.  Censorship button from here.  The Dick Van Dyke show logo came from here

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Three cheers for Hillary Clinton. Seriously.

This hurts me to do.
This is causing actual, physical pain. My teeth hurt, and my toes are curling under.
But, hey, credit must be given where credit is due.
Here is Michael Malone, of Pajamas Media, writing about She Whose Name Is Not Spoken. She has done a truly worthwhile thing, a thing that needed doing for my friends in China.

Two cheers for Google and Secretary of State Clinton.
Last week we saw Google publicly complain about China’s growing censorship of the Internet – and worse, cyber-attacks on Google’s search engine that were, in all likelihood, backed by the Chinese government. The search engine giant went so far as to threaten to leave the Chinese market if these concerns weren’t addressed.
Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a speech carried on the State Department web site, declared that unrestricted access to the Internet would become a top priority for the Administration – and directed sharp criticism at a number of countries around the world, notably Egypt and its recent arrest of 30 bloggers, for the recent spike in Internet censorship around the world.
But she gave special emphasis to China, now with the world’s largest number of Web users, calling on that government “to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent.”
Secretary Clinton built her case on what might be called the “Three Internet Freedoms”:
1. The right of all peoples to have access to an uncensored Internet.
2. The right of individuals to exercise free speech on the Internet
3. The right of businesses and other organizations to have access to uncensored information on the Internet in order to compete fairly.

Pretty impressive stuff, actually, and one showing a level of understanding about technology that one rarely encounters inside the Beltway. Kudos to Secretary Clinton for stepping up, in an era of kowtowing to dictators, for human freedom and (in the case of those Egyptian bloggers) liberty.....

Hit that link to read the whole thing.
Even A Blind Hog Can Find An Acorn Every Now And Then
Three cheers for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for standing up to the Chinese government.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Danish Cartoons, Irish Blasphemy Laws, Christ In Urine, and Obama As A Lawn Jockey

Last Friday night, a 28-year old Somali man armed with a knife and an axe entered the home of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.
Because of having drawn this particular cartoon....

.....and death threats against the artist, Westergaard's home was equipped with a safe room, or "panic room", for those who've seen the Jodie Foster movie.








From the D.C. Examiner: Westergaard was at home with his visiting 5-year-old granddaughter when he heard the suspect trying to break in. "I locked myself in our safe room and alerted the police.”

Unable to smash the front door with his ax, the suspect was shot once in the knee and once in the hand by police. The wounds are not life-threatening.

What's to be done about this situation, where Muslims those adhering to certain belief system want to destroy airliners, cartoonists, themselves, and others?

Ireland has responded by tightening up their Blasphemy laws. These regulations went into effect on January 1st. Here's The Guardian:

The new law, which was passed in July, means that blasphemy in Ireland is now a crime punishable with a fine of up to €25,000 (£22,000).

It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".

The justice minister, Dermot Ahern, said that the law was necessary because while immigration had brought a growing diversity of religious faiths, the 1936 constitution extended the protection of belief only to Christians.


In other words, the current version of the Irish Blasphemy statues are no less silly, but a lot more fair. If you want to watch the virus spread, and if you have a strong stomach, you can go here for a USA Today editorial about the U.N. and the Obama Administration supporting an International Law Against Blasphemy.

A group of Irish Freethinkers instantly responded by posting a list of quotations from Jesus, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer (hello Shuey !), Randy Newman, Salman Rushdie, George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict, and a few Irish politicians. Any of these quotations would be fair game for anyone wanting to earn some money or notoriety through a blasphemy complaint. Organized sensitivity is becoming more and more profitable.

Speaking of Blasphemy, let's change gears and continents for a moment. This is Andres Serrano's masterpiece, "Piss Christ". It's a photograph of a crucifix submerged in Serrano's urine. It was a big deal back in the late 1980's.



I can take it or leave it. If Andres Serrano wants photograph The Last Supper in purple pelican poop, it doesn't harm me in the least. It wouldn't harm you, either, unless you were forced to pay for it. (In the case of Piss Christ, you may have paid for it, but that's another story. Go here for more than you'll ever want to know about the incident.)

Speaking of Transgressive Art.... Here's a work that I might commission, if I ever get the proper Photoshop skills.

I want to do a multimedia installation showing Barack Obama dressed as a lawn jockey, parking cars at a Goldman Sachs Christmas party. It would be controversial, but it would illustrate the power relationship between Goldman Sachs and our government, and depict the level at which Obama truly is their little bitch.

I want to photograph a sterotypical Welfare Queen in her Cadillac, the stereotype so often derided during the Reagan era. I want to paste (juxtapose, in artspeak) the face of the Archer Daniels Midland CEO onto the body of the Welfare Queen, and call the piece "Welfare Brood Sow", and challenge preconceptions of government dependency.

The final work will be something called "U O Me", and I intend to hire a troupe of performance artists to infest the maternity ward of Arlington Memorial Hospital. The artists will give each infant a bill for $375,000.00, representing each child's share of the unfunded government liabilities voted into place by their grandparents. The artists will threaten to withold milk until all debts are paid.

If you're wanting to help fund any of these projects, don't bother. I'm going to apply for an NEA grant.

Let's review the topics covered so far:

1) Danish cartoons portraying Muhammed.
2) Quotes from Jesus, Twain, and Pope Benedict.
3) Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ".
4) Some proposed artwork of my own, designed to illustrate the corrupt nature of our government.

A few questions on each:

1) Have any of these caused you, or anyone else, physical harm?
2) Would you censor, or prosecute the producers of any of these forms of speech?
3) All of them, or just some of them? Why?
4) Do you think any of these are actually beneficial to society and represent a valid point of view?
5) And finally, do you think it's possible for a government to prohibit one category without endangering all the others?

Just wondering.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. (Especially if you're a god.)

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

On religious hangings, bannings, and boycotts

From The Associated Press, on Switzerland's recent ban on any new minarets:

GENEVA — The United Nations called Switzerland's ban on new minarets "clearly discriminatory" and deeply divisive, and the Swiss foreign minister acknowledged Tuesday the government was very concerned about how the vote would affect the country's image.

U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay said Sunday's referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets in Switzerland was the product of "anti-foreigner scare-mongering."

The criticism from Pillay, whose office is based in the Swiss city of Geneva, comes after an outcry from Muslim countries, Switzerland's European neighbors and human rights watchdogs since 57.5 percent of the Swiss population ratified the ban.

The Swiss government opposed the initiative but has sought to defend it as an action not against Islam or Muslims, but one aimed at improving integration and fighting extremism.

"These are extraordinary claims when the symbol of one religion is targeted," Pillay said in a statement. She said she was saddened to see xenophobic arguments gain such traction with Swiss voters despite their "long-standing support of fundamental human rights."

The referendum doesn't affect Switzerland's four existing minarets, or the ability of Muslims to practice their religion. It only bans the towers used to put out the Islamic call to prayer.

Let's change gears. This is from learned Islamic scholar Zakir Naik, probably the most popular Islamic theologian on our planet, on why it is understandable that non-Islamic religions are banned from constructing churches or synagogues in Muslim countries. (Spoiler alert: Islam is the only religion that gets it "right". Two plus two really does equal four.)



And finally,

Saudi Arabia has sentenced a man to death for practicing witchcraft.

A man has been sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for witchcraft because he makes predictions on television.
Ali Sibat is not even a Saudi national.
The Lebanese citizen was only visiting Saudi Arabia on pilgrimage when he was arrested in Medina last year.

A court in the city condemned him as a witch on November 9.

The only evidence presented in court was reportedly the claim he appeared regularly on Lebanese satellite issuing general advice on life and making predictions about the future.

The case is causing outrage among human rights campaigners but has made little news elsewhere despite the ludicrous nature of the charges and the extraordinary severity of Sibat's sentence.

"Saudi courts are sanctioning a literal witch hunt by the religious police," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

"The crime of witchcraft is being used against all sorts of behavior, with the cruel threat of state sanctioned executions."

Ali Sibat's supporters say he was denied a lawyer at his trial and was tricked into making a confession.

He is not the only victim of Saudi Arabia's literal witch hunt. Human Rights Watch says two other people have been arrested on similar charges in the last month alone.

It claims a lower court in Jeddah started the trial of a Saudi this month who was arrested by the religious police and said to have smuggled a book of witchcraft into the kingdom.

In another case the religious police are said to have arrested for "sorcery" and "charlatanry" an Asian man accusing him of using supernatural powers to solve marital disputes and induce others to fall in love.

Let's wind things up with a post from Dr. Ralph, who reports on the continuing struggle against retailers who say "Holidays" instead of "Christmas":

I'm bracing myself for our latest holiday tradition, the bombastic pronouncements about the "War on Christmas."

For the past several years, self-anointed protectors of Christmas have been creating lists of which retailers are naughty or nice. This seems to boil down to who says "Holiday" in their advertising instead of "Christmas."

On the Naughty list have been such Satanic organizations as Sears, Wal-Mart, Target, The Gap, Banana Republic, Home Depot. This year's Naughty and Nice list has been helpfully compiled by the American Family Association of Tupelo, Mississippi.

You may recall the American Family Association, led by the Reverand Donald Wildmon, from their previous name, the National Federation for Decency. They reared their pointy little heads in 1977, when they campaigned against what they perceived as indecency on television. Interestingly they never seemed to care about violence, just sex.

It will come as no surprise that the AFA rails constantly against what they refer to as "the homosexual agenda." As is usually the case, they wrap their intolerance and hatred in religiosity.

Fighting immorality must be profitable: the AFA's annual budget is around $14 million. The Reverend Donald's son Tim is now President of the family business.

And a business it is, make no mistake.

In addition to their network of 28 radio stations (all Family Friendly!) they've expanded their Decency Empire to include news websites for the Christian point of view, support for home schoolers, a line of "Christian-focused" videos, estate planning, and Holy Land vacation tours.

They even hawk their very own AFA branded Internet Filter ("Use the trusted Family Filter the Wildmons use in their home!").

You can't make this shit up.

No, you can't make it up. All you can do is copy, paste, and lament. My religion is right, because it's the one I grew up with. Your religion is wrong, because it is so obviously silly. I can't defend my religion with anything other than appeals to brand loyalty. You can only defend yours with force.

But we're still going to hang, ban, or boycott each other because of these stories.

Like The Doctor said, you can't make this shit up.

Monday, November 16, 2009

You probably missed this year's book burning. Mark your calendars for 2010. Bring everything but a King James bible.

From the Amazing Grace Baptist Church KJV.com website.... (When he refers to TR, he means "Textus Receptus". Generally used in scholarly circles to mean "the received text", or "the one we've ended up using".)

Come to our Halloween book burning. We are burning Satan's bibles like the NIV, RSV, NKJV, TLB, NASB, NEV, NRSV, ASV, NWT, Good News for Modern Man, The Evidence Bible, The Message Bible, The Green Bible, ect. These are perversions of God's Word, the King James Bible.
We will also be burning Satan's music such as country , rap , rock , pop, heavy metal, western, soft and easy, southern gospel , contempory Christian , jazz, soul, oldies but goldies, etc.

We will also be burning Satan's popular books written by heretics like Westcott & Hort , Bruce Metzger, Billy Graham , Rick Warren , Bill Hybels , John McArthur, James Dobson, Charles Swindoll , John Piper, Chuck Colson, Tony Evans, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swagart, Mark Driskol, Franklin Graham , Bill Bright, Tim Lahaye, Paula White, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn , Joyce Myers, Brian McLaren, Robert Schuller, Mother Teresa , The Pope , Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, Brennan Manning, William Young, etc.
We are not burning Bibles written in other languages that are based on the TR. We are not burning the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva or other translations that are based on the TR.

We will be serving Bar-b-Que Chicken, fried chicken, and all the sides.

That last line has brought me more joy and happiness than you can imagine.
This year's book burning has already taken place, but the 2010 event already has its own link. Go here to get directions.
One other thing that I can't resist mentioning.... King James was gay.
Pics of the King James Only controversy came from here.

Friday, August 14, 2009

John Donatich, Yale University Press, The Jewel Of Medina, and the whimper of whipped dogs.

About a year ago, Random House pulled the plug on a novel about the prophet Mohammed and his child bride.
When time permits, please compare the Weasel Words in this old press release about "The Jewel Of Medina" by Sherry Jones, and John Donatich's whimpering in yesterday's NYT about "The Cartoons That Shook The World", a Yale University Press book about the cartoons published in Denmark that won't be published in Yale's book about the cartoons. (See previous post.)

After sending out advance editions of the novel THE JEWEL OF MEDINA, we received in response, from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.
We felt an obligation to take these concerns very seriously. We consulted with security experts as well as with scholars of Islam, whom we asked to review the book and offer their assessments of potential reactions.

I'll bet you dollars against donuts that the security experts and "scholars of Islam" in the Jewel Of Medina controversy overlap with the security experts and schoolmarms that John Donatich allowed to squash the Danish cartoon book.
These people are authoritative, yet anonymous.

We stand firmly by our responsibility to support our authors and the free discussion of ideas, even those that may be construed as offensive by some.

No, you don't. You didn't. You can't say that any more. You really can't. The point of publishing something like this is to offer another point of view, change people's minds, provoke a discussion, and possibly offend people. You caved in. You didn't support your authors and the free discussion of ideas. Notice the Weasel Words "may", "construed", and "some".

However, a publisher must weigh that responsibility against others that it also bears, and in this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel. The author and Ballantine subsequently agreed to terminate the agreement, with the understanding that the author would be free to publish elsewhere, if she so chose.

- The Random House Publishing Group

So who are these people that can tell Yale and Random House what to censor? Who elected them? Do they even exist? If you look at the article on the cartoon book, you'll see that they only way to learn what they said is by promising not to tell anyone.

Amazing.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Yale University Press bans controversial cartoons of Muhammad in new book about controversial cartoons of Muhammad.

I don't expect anyone to read this ridiculously long post. I'm just ranting. This is from The New York Times, with a fresh coat of Whitening for Hot Air....

It’s not all that surprising that Yale University Press would be wary of reprinting notoriously controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a forthcoming book.

Actually, it is surprising. And it's funny. When I was in the literary retail racket, I didn't hesitate to sell Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" or "American Psycho" by Brett Easton Ellis, or to host autographings by the Roe vs Wade lawyer, all despite some threats. You hire a security guard, and go on with your job.

Full Disclosure: I'm not proud of it, but I also sold a lot of Danielle Steel novels.

After all, when the 12 caricatures were first published by a Danish newspaper a few years ago and reprinted by other European publications, Muslims all over the world angrily protested, calling the images — which included one in which Muhammad wore a turban in the shape of a bomb — blasphemous.
That makes it sound like an immediate cause and effect relationship. It wasn't until a group of outrage-mongers produced a drawing of Big Mo's face on the body of a pig, several months after the initial publication of the cartoons, that the "Muslims all over the world angrily protested".

In the Middle East and Africa some rioted, burning and vandalizing embassies; others demanded a boycott of Danish goods; a few nations recalled their ambassadors from Denmark. In the end at least 200 people were killed.

That's what happens when you spread ink on paper to make satirical comments about all-powerful beings who can't take up for themselves.

So Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous:

Let's get real here....Is there ANY doubt in your mind what that group is going to recommend?

The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005.

This is like writing a book about pencil sharpeners, but being told that you can't mention, you know, those devices with rotating blades that, you know what I'm talking about? they, like, fit on the end of wooden writing instruments, and you rotate them so that, you know, it gives them a fine point?

What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí.

This is what we now call academic freedom. It's why they get tenure. It's why people who work in that environment have jobs for life. So they don't have to worry about offending people who think their god(s) can't take up for themselves.

The book’s author, Jytte Klausen, a Danish-born professor of politics at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., reluctantly accepted Yale University Press’s decision not to publish the cartoons. But she was disturbed by the withdrawal of the other representations of Muhammad. All of those images are widely available, Ms. Klausen said by telephone, adding that “Muslim friends, leaders and activists thought that the incident was misunderstood, so the cartoons needed to be reprinted so we could have a discussion about it.” The book is due out in November.
I can't wait to open this book and dive into the Politically Correct Sensitivityspeak that Yale is going to dump into the preface. Can't wait. Will reprint it here.

John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said by telephone that the decision was difficult, but the recommendation to withdraw the images, including the historical ones of Muhammad, was “overwhelming and unanimous.” The cartoons are freely available on the Internet and can be accurately described in words, Mr. Donatich said, so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous.

John Donatich can be described in words also, but I'll refrain. Notice the weasel words "could" and "interpreted".

He noted that he had been involved in publishing other controversial books — like “The King Never Smiles” by Paul M. Handley, a recent unauthorized biography of Thailand’s current monarch — and “I’ve never blinked.” But, he said, “when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.”

A lot of great work has been produced in dangerous circumstances. Tom Paine - Common Sense. William Tyndale - The English Bible. John Bunyan - Pilgrim's Progress. Voltaire scratching out plays in the Bastille.

The line ends with John Donatich.

Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and the author of “No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam,” is a fan of the book but decided to withdraw his supportive blurb that was to appear in the book after Yale University Press dropped the pictures. The book is “a definitive account of the entire controversy,” he said, “but to not include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic.” In Mr. Aslan’s view no danger remains. “The controversy has died out now, anyone who wants to see them can see them,” he said of the cartoons, noting that he has written and lectured extensively about the incident and shown the cartoons without any negative reaction. He added that none of the violence occurred in the United States: “There were people who were annoyed, and what kind of publishing house doesn’t publish something that annoys some people?”

Most academic writing is so dense and burdened with so much jargon that it really doesn't annoy anyone. No one finishes it who doesn't already agree with it.

“This is an academic book for an academic audience by an academic press,” he continued. “There is no chance of this book having a global audience, let alone causing a global outcry.” He added, “It’s not just academic cowardice, it is just silly and unnecessary.”

True. My younger brother is a history professor, and recently published a book through an academic press. He's got an interesting story to tell, he's a great writer, but the dang book costs $78.00. Not much chance of a global audience there.

Mr. Donatich said that the images were still provoking unrest as recently as last year when the Danish police arrested three men suspected of trying to kill the artist who drew the cartoon depicting Muhammad’s turban as a bomb. He quoted one of the experts consulted by Yale — Ibrahim Gambari, special adviser to the secretary general of the United Nations and the former foreign minister of Nigeria — as concluding: “You can count on violence if any illustration of the prophet is published. It will cause riots, I predict, from Indonesia to Nigeria.”

That swath of real estate from Indonesia to Nigeria doesn't include Yale, does it?

Aside from the disagreement about the images, Ms. Klausen said she was also disturbed by Yale’s insistence that she could read a 14-page summary of the consultants’ recommendations only if she signed a confidentiality agreement that forbade her from talking about them. “I perceive it to be a gag order,” she said, after declining to sign. While she could understand why some of the individuals consulted might prefer to remain unidentified, she said, she did not see why she should be precluded from talking about their conclusions.

I've beaten this dead horse elsewhere, but outside of a Townhall Healthcare meeting, is there any place on earth that stifles Free Speech more than academia? (I really do hate to sound so anti-intellectual, but damn....)

Linda Koch Lorimer, vice president and secretary of Yale University, who had discussed the summary with Ms. Klausen, said on Wednesday that she was merely following the original wishes of the consultants, some of whom subsequently agreed to be identified.

1. We're going to get people from all over the world to tell us what to do in this situation.
2. We're going to keep their recommendations (and identities) a secret.
3. The only way to read their recommendations is to promise that you won't ever, ever, ever discuss their recommendations.
4. Therefore, the 14-page document outlining their recommendations could be whatever the person who typed it wants it to be.
5. Brilliant.
....Other publishers, including The New York Times, chose not to print the cartoons or images of Muhammad when the controversy erupted worldwide in February 2006...
Face Of Muhammad cartoon came from here.