The Cartoons -- The Cowardice
Doug Ireland becomes one of the few unabashedly leftist writers to come out in favor of publishing the infamous Islamic cartoon series. With his characteristic forthrightness, Doug's piece is free of wishy-washy, temporizing, politically correct BS about observing cultural differences or about weighing the barbaric mob violence against the outrages of U.S. Imperialism.
Thanks, Doug, for reminding us that we all have, well, a God-given right to caricature God, and certainly his self-appointed prophets. An excerpt from Dougie's piece:
The United States press has been a model of cowardice. Not a single major daily newspaper ran even one clear image of the twelve cartoons until a week after the protests began, when the Philadelphia Inquirer became the first daily to run one of the dozen caricatures. CNN has continuously pixellated the sole cartoon it has deigned to run so that nothing can be seen of it.
Even Bill Bennett – the former Reagan drug war czar, author of The Book of Virtues and other preachy tomes, and a commentator on CNN's payroll – told Wolf Blitzer in a 3 February debate about the cartoons on CNN that he found the network's failure to show any of the offending cartoons "appalling". That same day's New York Times finally ran – buried on page 43 – an oh-so-carefully cropped reproduction of the France Soir front-page that featured one cartoon (which one would need a magnifying glass to discern)...
What's really going on here is an attempt to extend to the west the kind of theocratic censorship that Islamic fundamentalists enforce by intimidation or law in countries from Morocco and Algeria to Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. There is a long and rich tradition in western countries of caricatures of religious figures and leaders, including Jesus himself.
Those of us who are not god-botherers need to raise our voices loudly for a secular approach to the news, and condemn the newspapers and TV networks that have knuckled under to fear of the fundamentalist theocrats' threats. I don't always agree with Salman Rushdie, but he was on target when he said: "Fundamentalism isn't about religion. It's about power."
The western media outlets that have refused to reproduce any of the cartoons – especially those in the United States – have just handed the theocratic primitives a victory, and thus increased their power. Instead, let's hear a loud cheer for irreverence – the intelligent person's response to the mad fantasies of all revealed religions.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Doug Ireland is not a “leftist”. He is a liberal like you. Btw, you citing him is what as known as “logrolling” in the world of publishing. Like an effusive blurb from George Packer on the back of a Paul Berman book. Too bad you are too stupid to make your own case for racist cartoons.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
I usually have a strong opinion on issues like this, but here I find myself somewhat troubled. Sure I believe in a free press, uninhibited by governments or religious groups. But I also believe that a particular media outlet shouldn’t be compelled by others to disseminate material that it considers offensive, be it a wardrobe malfunction, an unflattering portrayal of of a racial group, or an insensitive depiction of a religious theme. There’s plenty of this stuff out there, if you want to be entertained. In this case we are dealing with the right of the public to know, but this can be done, it seems to me, without the use of the images themselves. Verbal and written descriptions have given me a pretty clear idea of what’s going on.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
“Those of us who are not god-botherers need to raise our voices loudly for a secular approach to the news, and condemn the newspapers and TV networks that have knuckled under to fear of the fundamentalist theocrats’ threats. I don’t always agree with Salman Rushdie, but he was on target when he said: “Fundamentalism isn’t about religion. It’s about power.””
What I consider abhorrent is exploitation of the ALREADY exploited. There is no doubt that U.S. economic policies over the last 50 years have devastated the lives of millions in Asia and the Middle-East. Our avarice in wanting to obtain their natural resources and cheap foreign labor has caused these populations to live poverty, illness and ignorance.
We’ve propped-up “puppet governments,” who are little more than dictatorships to ensure that we could have our selfish way with their country. During the period of the Cold War, we were frightened that the Soviets would take over certain countries and that energy sources would become nationalized.
As a result, WE FUELED THE FLAMES OF ISLAM—it was better for capitalism and the U.S., if we only had to deal with RELIGION and not COMMUNISM! Unfortunately, the BRAINS in our government, did not realize the intensity of the conflagration that would evolve over time.
No one thought to analyze what would eventually occur when millions of people who live in abject poverty with no education, are organized by intelligent and cunning leaders who use RELIGIOUS fervor that we originally ignited, AGAINST US. We initially preferred to fight against the irrationality of theology rather than the ideology of politics—and isn’t it funny how our stupidity in dealing with other cultures and religions has come back to haunt us again, and again.
So what do we have now, hundreds of millions who are so discontent and so filled with hate that they find comfort in religion and the thought of destroying the West. It’s upsetting to know that the CHANGES that these poor and exploited are fighting for will not be found in 7th century religious beliefs. The better way of life that they are searching for could emerge through a secular education. Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself. Otherwise they are doomed to remain manipulated by whoever controls and exploits them.
February 8th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Marc — correction. It is my understanding that the Conservative NY Sun has run ALL the cartoons. The press in Europe has recognized that if Muslims can impose what you can and cannot say, it’s a form of censorship by the mob. You either have free speech or you don’t.
What Eleanor above typifies IMHO is the caste system of Folk Marxism as Taranto coined it, with various rank order of preference “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups. Gays are preferred and higher status “oppressed” groups except when up against Muslims who well, kill them. Because Muslims (when for example Iran hangs Gays) are “Third World oppressed groups” and so trump the Gays.
So, Free Speech? Folk Marxism holds group rights and caste-rank order paramount, not individual rights such as Free Speech or equality under the law.
As Bernard Lewis has pointed out in numerous articles, as far back as 1993, Islam is in fundamental conflict with the West because Western cultural influence of secular rational humanism is so pervasive world-wide that one civilizational model or the other will prevail. Either we submit to Sharia by degrees (first they came for the cartoonists, etc) or they will end up losing their religion.
“Spengler” on the Asian Times has some thoughts on this cartoon jihad (basically rising literacy causes people to lose their religion). I suspect it’s because once you read the Bible or Koran or Talmud most of the “rules” and other stuff becomes recognizable for garbage it is and people simply pick personal meanings for “faith.” “Muslims can’t take a joke because their faith is fragile and doubt destroys it.”
Bernard Lewis: http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/roots_of_muslim_rage.htm
Spengler:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak02.html
February 8th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Thanks—for telling me what I think—Is that your simple way of dismissing a legitimate analysis—tossing out a term “Folk Marxism,” coined by a right-wing ideologue who even considers Maureen Dodd a Marxist.
“ the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”
– Maureen Dowd, the New York Times Maureen Dowd’s statement is Marxist. No, she did not advocate revolution by the proletariat She did not say that we ought to have a Communist state. But her famous remark that someone in a particular class of victims has “absolute” moral authority is derived from “folk Marxism.”
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012206D
Right wing simpletons are all the same—you demonize and dismiss anyone who has an alternative view; and that is why this country is in the mess it is.
There are hundreds of millions of FOLK living in third world countries today who don’t seem like “happy campers” living under BUSH’S capitalism.
I see that Woody has a disciple.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
I would be sympathetic to a view that, all else being equal, it is right to avoid causing offence if the offence were remotely reasonable.
But in this case, the very irrationality of the reaction is the story - and it’s impossible to fully comprehend how deranged the reaction is unless you have seen how trivial is the offensive potential of the actual cartoons.
If the cartoons were genuinely offensive, I can see an argument that the reader doesn’t need to actually see them to understand the story. But in this case, no media outlet has properly conveyed the key facts of the story that has not published the cartoons.
And hey, if you can’t mock god, then who the hell can you mock?
February 9th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Let’s speak in plain English. Anyone who publishes these cartoons might get his throat slit. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out, this is a good reason for not publishing, but the Old Media is simply too dishonest or too confused to state the obvious.
The argument that anyone can accurately report on this without showing you the cartoons that lauched a thousand Molotov cocktails speaks for itself.
As for the Left? The Enlightenment principle of universal freedom might be worth defending. Historicist and multi-cultural principles, might equally, (for the sake of argument–I don’t believe it myself) be worth defending, but good luck defending them all at the same time, folks!
The Left has a long and honorable tradition of defending speech rights, without qualification. I hope it continues.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:54 am
John: “Doug Ireland is not a “leftist”. He is a liberal like you. Btw, you citing him is what as known as “logrolling” in the world of publishing. Like an effusive blurb from George Packer on the back of a Paul Berman book. Too bad you are too stupid to make your own case for racist cartoons.”
That’s nothing. I’ve seen warbloggers refer to Ireland, not even as a “leftist”, but as a “radical” in order to make some “see, even THEY agree with me” point.
Jim “Turner Diaries” Rockford: “Marc — correction. It is my understanding that the Conservative NY Sun has run ALL the cartoons.”
Calling the NY Sun “conservative” is like calling the Voice of Aztlan “liberal”. Sorry, but that just doesn’t fly.
Ethnic nationalism has nothing inherently to do with “right” or “left.”
“What Eleanor above typifies IMHO is the caste system of Folk Marxism as Taranto coined it, with various rank order of preference “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups. Gays are preferred and higher status “oppressed” groups except when up against Muslims who well, kill them. Because Muslims (when for example Iran hangs Gays) are “Third World oppressed groups” and so trump the Gays.”
Folk Marxism? This from someone who cynically employs the rhetoric of Cultural Marxism (see also the paragraph about “secular rational humanism”) to further his agenda — much like the Bush administration, come to think of it.
“The press in Europe has recognized that if Muslims can impose what you can and cannot say, it’s a form of censorship by the mob. You either have free speech or you don’t.”
In the interest of full and complete “free speech”:
Here’a cartoon which I think does an excellent job of illustrating the European commitment to “free speech.”
Here’s a story about how the brave defenders of “free speech” and “freedom of the press” at Jyllands-Posten rejected Jesus-mocking cartoons because they would “provoke an outcry.” Do tell.
Here’s a story about some folks who’ve learned first-hand just how deep the European commitment to “free speech” is.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Also, here’s an excerpt of a post by Xymphora that does an excellent job of taking apart some of the myths surrounding this whole thing. I’ve trimmed the links down to 3 to avoid “moderation” limbo.
******
Juan Cole takes care of the Saudi conspiracy by considering the timing issues in how the protests arose. In fact, if we look at the timing issues, we can see how the real conspirators, who were all non-Muslim Europeans, worked. The intention was to provoke the kind of response in the Middle East that we are seeing now. The initial European salvo was to solicit the material and publish it in a Danish newspaper. It didn’t work. In fact, there were peaceful Muslim protests - putting the lie to allegations that there were no protests until the issue was artificially raised later - and an attempt to use the Danish legal system to confront the issue. Danish Muslims behaved in exactly the responsible way that the current critics of the violence say they should have behaved. In response, they got nowhere with the legal system - apparently it is only illegal to make fun of Jews (with a predictable response to Eurohypocrisy from Iran) - and a lecture from the Danish Prime Minister, threatening protestors with legal repercussions and essentially telling them to go fuck themselves. The official Danish response, that nothing can be done because it is a free speech issue, has been proven to be a lie as the same newspaper had rejected cartoons insulting to Christians on the basis that they would offend its readership and “provoke an outcry”.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:04 am
AAA -
That link to the ‘Truthseeker’ site spooked me. Are you simply arguing a point about the importance of free speech (even when noxious) or are you also joining in the piece’s strong implication that the extent of the holocaust is vastly overstated, a Zionist ruse, and thus the suppressed speech in this case isn’t really noxious. Unless you actually subscribe to holocaust denial (which doesn’t sound like you) this is one helluva a bad way to make your point.
I’ll agree that if the Europeans are going to have laws concerning hate speech, they shouldn’t apply only to Jews. However, it’s pretty damn clear why the laws were written that way; it has everything to do with Europe’s sordid history vis a vis the Jews and nothing to do with anti-Muslim prejudice (I’m assuming here that you’re not in agreement with the Truthseeker’s historical views).
The first cartoon you linked to actually makes your point nicely, showing the hypocrisy European guilt has engendered (I’d argue unwittingly), without laying the blame on the Jews (who, unlike Muslims were historically in an excruciatingly vulnerable power relationship with Europe).
I agree in general about the NY Sun, had no knowledge of the Voice of Aztlan, before seeing your reference. I looked it up to see if it really was the Sun’s obverse — took a quick whiff; no need to go back for more.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Marc, I have come around to your way of thinking on this cartoon issue. I don’t know why I defended the notion that the cartoons should have been held back because of concerns about sensitivity. Kinda ashamed of myself, since I have always been a first amendment junkie.
You mentioned Bill Bennett, well another reactionary, Cal Thomas, has written a column defending the freedom of these cartoons to appear. He also notes that in Iran and virtually all other Muslim countries, state run newspapers have run far more offensive cartoons depicting Jewish people in a disgusting light.
I never thought I’d see the day when I would side with Cal Thomas and Bill Bennett on an issue.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:25 am
I haven’t seen these apparently insulting (to a very large segment of the worlds population apparently) cartoons and don’t necessarily need to, since the argument seems to center around the ‘right’ to publish them.
I have a few question for the ‘rights’ side:
1. Do rights exist in a vacumn without
responsibility?
2. Given the sensitive nature of the Muslim
struggle to find their place in an increasingly
‘modern’(read than liberal) and smaller
(read that communication) world, what
would the purpose of purposely insulting
their known deeply religious beliefs when
anyone over the age of puberty knows
ones religion is what you rely on most in
difficult and uncertain times?
3. Were any of the publishers of these
caricatures of Muhammad over
age of puberty mentally, BTW?
4. In light of the injury and death these ‘rights
without responsibility’ publishers have
ignited, how close does this come to yelling
fire in a theater?
5. If the law has no answer to 4, is it OK for
Muslims to exact the ‘responsibility’
component by beating the shit out of them,
then serving their jail time for it(being
slightly facetious here).
6. Has the ‘free’ world lived so long in freedom
that ‘rights’ now trump common sense,
balance, and responsibility?
There was absolutely no need for these caricatures to be published at this time in an already divided and unstable nuclear world. Those who choose to add more gasoline to a fire they knew was already beginning to burn are being reminded of that responsibility component ……in the unlawful mob justice fashion that captures innocents in its wake
February 9th, 2006 at 10:42 am
The last paragraph of my previous post should have been preficed with “Wait….let ME answer thesen questions….
February 9th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Why is it a big deal that Bennet and Cal Thomas support the printing of the cartoons? They’re just rooting for the home team against the bad guys. Let’s see them take this stand when it’s their ox that’s being gored. That will be worth noting.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Evets,
I never said it was “a big deal.” I just think it’s interesting that Thomas and Bennett have a more enlightened view about this than CNN or virtually every major news daily in the U.S.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Cal Thomas, btw, despite his dogmatic morality complex and pro-Israeli occupation stance, is probably fairly principled when it comes to free speech, and I don’t imagine that he would be in favor of censorship even if it was his “ox being gored.”
In the case of Bennett, on the other hand, you are probably correct. He has constantly been an enemy of free speech, no more evident than when he tried to get the government to crack down on black hip hop artists back in the mid-1990’s.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I stand corrected on Thomas, confirmed on Bennet.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Jim Russell,
1) Of course there are responsiblities that come with rights.
2) Jim Russell asks, “what
would the purpose of purposely insulting
their known deeply religious beliefs when
anyone over the age of puberty knows
ones religion is what you rely on most in
difficult and uncertain times?”
Where free speech is concerned, I don’t believe that anyone needs to justify a “purpose” whatsoever.
But putting that aside, don’t you think that humor and laughter serves a legitimate public purpose?
I have a friend who has cancer, and he uses humor to cope with the fact that he may not have many more days (I think we might all know someone like him). It is a delicate subject with his children, and his wife and mother; but his self-deprecating sense of humor is what drives him to keep getting up early in the morning and tackling the world: humor.
September 11, 2001 was a horrible day for all of us who live here in the U.S., and it is obvious that terrorists are not through plotting attacks on the U.S. I really fear the world that I will be bringing my children up in.
But when a cartoon can come along that makes light of the situation, and I can actually laugh about it, Jim, I don’t necessarily think that that is a bad thing. Laughter is the best thing for what ails a person. The Bush administration is AWFUL, but when I see that weekly cartoon from Tom Tomorrow appear in Salon, it makes life under King George that much more liveable.
I respect the Muslim faith, as I respect all faiths. But Muslims - and particularly radical Jihadists - should respect our rights to cope with the terrorist threat facing our nation in probably the best way that exists: laughter. It is a small price, I think.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
3) “Were any of the publishers of these
caricatures of Muhammad over
age of puberty mentally, BTW?”
I am not sure.
4) “In light of the injury and death these ‘rights
without responsibility’ publishers have
ignited, how close does this come to yelling
fire in a theater?”
I’ll answer this question with a question of my own: If thousands of women in the middle east have had their lips slashed off with razor blades, or killed, because they committed the crime of wearing lip stick, does that mean that in your opinion it is not responsible for us to allow the sale of lipstick or cosmetics, because radical Islam is offended by ladies cosmetics?
5) “In light of the injury and death these ‘rights
without responsibility’ publishers have
ignited, how close does this come to yelling
fire in a theater?”
No closer than the Beatles song “Helter Skelter” did in causing lots of death and suffering in the Tate/LaBianca murders. To argue otherwise dignifies the respective beliefs of Charles Manson and radical jihadists.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
They’re going to have to get over it. Anti-Jewish cartoons have been the staple of state arab presses for years. The ole goose and gander equation is in play. Of course not insulting anyone would be one way to go but I won’t hold my breath for that.
February 9th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Oops. Number 5 is actually,
“If the law has no answer to 4, is it OK for
Muslims to exact the ‘responsibility’
component by beating the shit out of them,
then serving their jail time for it(being
slightly facetious here).
Putting aside the fact that the people who got the shit beat out of them were related in no way to the publishing of the cartoons (they were targeted because they were white and non-Muslim), it should be noted that it is not hard to live and let live.
6. Has the ‘free’ world lived so long in freedom
that ‘rights’ now trump common sense,
balance, and responsibility?”
I am not sure I understand.
February 9th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
One thing I should have mentioned earlier was that I seemed to recall a certain poster from this thread stating, not that long ago actually, in response to something Hugo Chavez that hurt his poor widdle feelings, that “in the old days, the Marines would have already landed and taken care of business”, or something to that effect.
Now, maybe I just don’t get it, but this seems to be an awfully strange way of showing one’s commitment to absolute free speech. Right, Mr. Hang ‘em High?
And that’s before we even bring the numerous exhortations to lynching “traitorous” university professors and Democrats into the mix.
February 9th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
By the way, depictions of Muhammad, esp. in Ottoman Turkey and in Persia/Iran, are nothing new — although usually the face is not depicted.
Those of you who seek to separate these cartoons and put them into their own realm, completely isolated from what is currently going in the world, are living in la-la-land.
And, even he though he was the target of much ire here recently, I think Justin Raimondo’s column really hits the nail on the head.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Abbas–let me share this e-mail with you.
BECAUSE I STILL BELIEVE
“It’s difficult in times like these: ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality. It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart. I simply can’t build my hopes on a foundation of confusion, misery, and death…and yet…I think…this cruelty will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again.”
The hopeful words of Anne Frank, prior to her capture by the Nazis’; truly it is remarkable to be so hopeful and optimistic, and to not have been tainted by senseless and horrendous experiences, but to still view the world in such a pure and non-cynical light.
But others feel it is necessary to take a more skeptical view of humanity—since human nature may not be truly good or truly bad; but a manifestation of ones fortunate or unfortunate experiences.
And that is why we must remain vigilant to ensure that our freedoms are never jeopardized by “executive powers” that are allowed to be unchecked.
The other day the Senate had the feel of a Vegas casino, there was an overwhelming sense that all games were fixed, that one could never beat the house. Alberto Gonzales was invited to the Senate for the purpose of determining whether the President is going too far in his NSA surveillance program. Arlen Specter did NOT even want Alberto Gonzalez to take an oath—why take the chance of perjury!
It should be noted that, in a recent memo, George W. Bush’s chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and [Cheney counsel] David Addington .” gave the opinion that laws prohibiting torture do “not apply to the President’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants.”
Further, the memo puts forth the opinion that the pain caused by an interrogation must include “injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions—in order to constitute torture.” The methods outlined in the memo “provoked concerns within the CIA about possible violation of the federal torture law and also raised concerns at the FBI, where some agents knew of the techniques being used” overseas on high-level al Qaeda officials.
“Executive Presidential Powers” MUST never go unchecked.
According to Gonzales there is TERROR everywhere, there are no borders to contain it, there is no time when we can predicts its end; it’s just a continuous amorphous enemy that we must be vigilant against. And how long does our government say, we will be in this state of war against terror: “for as long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens.” Well if that’s the case, we better prepare for an indefinite period of war and interminable fight against terror.
IT’S ALL IN THE INTERPRETATION!
When Alberto Gonzales was Texas Chief Legal Counsel, for then Governor George Bush, In his briefing on death-row defendant Terry Washington – a mentally retarded 33-year-old man with the communication skills of a seven-year-old – Gonzales devoted nearly a third of his three-page report to the gruesome details of the crime, but referred “only fleetingly to the central issue in Washington’s clemency appeal—his limited mental capacity, which was never disputed by the State of Texas.
In addition, Gonzales “failed to mention that Washington’s mental limitations, and the fact that he and his ten siblings were regularly beaten with whips, water hoses, extension cords, wire hangers, and fan belts, were never made known to the jury, although both the district attorney and Washington’s trial lawyer knew of this potentially mitigating evidence.”
Nor did he mention that Washington’s lawyer had “failed to enlist a mental-health expert” to testify on Washington’s behalf, even though “ineffective counsel and mental retardation were in fact the central issues raised in the thirty-page clemency petition” it was Gonzales’s job to review. This all came at a time when “demand was growing nationwide to ban executions of the retarded.”
ARE LAWS MADE TO BE BROKEN?
And what is really dangerous, is if we are “not vigilant,” our government could pass oppressive legislation in the guise of PUBLIC PROTECTION!
What happens if NSA is incapable of discerning that their data mining is being used for illegal domestic spying? Supposedly the FBI has become so inundated with misleading information from NSA—that they are becoming disgruntled—they don’t need nor want to know if someone ordered pepperoni with their pizza from Pizza Hut .
Bush stated that the information gathered on Iraq was false and “It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”
So if we carry this thought to its logical conclusion then we can say–If ANYONE CAN BE SPIED ON AT ANY TIME; isn’t there a possibility that errors will inevitably be made?
And more importantly, WHO WILL ULTIMATELY DECIDE who and what TERROR IS?
Is terror a political activist?
Is terror a natural disaster?
Is terror a pandemic?
Can laws written to protect Americans, ultimately be rewritten to be used against Americans?
“When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
A gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
Wasn’t a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
Am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
Speak.” -On the Wall at the Holocaust Museum in Washington
l
February 9th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
I’m not entering the fray here, but for those simply interested in advocating for the jailed Jordanian editors, this is the Rapid Action that PEN USA, an org. of which I’m on the board, has decided to put out. We did our best to acknowledge the cultural and legal complexities while also standing up for the rights of the editors who appeared to be only calling appropriately for measured, non-violent dialogue.
Anyway, here it is…
***********************************
JORDAN - Editors Jihad Momani and Hashem al-Khalidi were arrested last week
for reprinting the Danish cartoons that have been the subject of so much
controversy and violence recently. They face trial next week and there are
reports that Momani is in ill health.
SAMPLE LETTER OF APPEAL FOR JORDAN
February 8, 2006
His Excellency Dr. Marouf Bakhit
Prime Minister
P.O. Box 80
Amman - Jordan
11180
Your Excellency:
I am writing on behalf of PEN USA, part of an international organization of
writers with an 85-year history of defending freedom of expression through
the written word.
I was very distressed to learn that Jihad Momani, former editor-in-chief of
the weekly Shihan, and Hashem al-Khalidi, editor-in chief of the weekly
Al-Mehwar, were arrested last week for publishing the cartoons that have
been the subject of so much controversy and violence recently.
The cartoons were a re-print of the images that appeared in a Danish
newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, last September. As you know, they depicted
images of the prophet Mohammed, and have thus caused outrage among many
Muslims. Momani and al-Khalidi were charged with violating Article 5 and 7
of the Press and Publication Law. Article 5 prohibits “publishing anything
that conflicts with the … values of the Arab and Islamic nation,” and
Article 7 prohibits “publishing anything that may instigate violence,
prejudice, bigotry or of anything which invites racism, sectarianism or
provincialism.” The editors both state that they published the images with
the intent to calm the anger that has spread. Their trials are scheduled
for the coming week.
While I do not wish to diminish the offense these images may have caused, I
must protest these charges on the basis that they violate Article 19 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which forbids the
imprisonment of journalists solely for what they have published, and to
which Jordan is a signatory. I therefore call for the immediate and
unconditional release of these individuals.
There are also reports that Momani is suffering from chest pains. PEN USA
also seeks assurances that he receives proper medical attention while in
custody.
PLEASE ADDRESS THIS LETTER TO THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS:
His Excellency Dr. Marouf Bakhit
Prime Minister
P.O. Box 80
Amman - Jordan
11180
You may also wish to send a letter to Jordan¹s representative in your
country. For the US, that person is:
Karim Kawar
Ambassador of Jordan
Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
3504 International Drive,
N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Telephone number: (202) 966 - 2664
Fax number:
(202) 966 - 3110
E-mail: HKJEmbassyDC@aol.com
Also, as always, PEN USA recommends that you only use email for your letters
of appeal as a last resort.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Eleanore,
Thanks for the email. One thing that surprised me about it what was the text of that inscription on the wall in the Holocaust Museum.
I went there once three years ago. They were showcasing a movie on Chechnya. (Way past time for Armenians to have their story told, as well)
I guess I didn’t pay close enough attention to everything, however. Because if that is the actual inscription in the Museum than Pastor Niemoller’s words have been severely edited. Right off the top of my head, based on memory, I can think of at least two groups that come before gypsies in that famous quote of his, that are missing from this version.
And it’s not like only a handful of people belonging to those groups were sent to the camps either. They were both virtually wiped out. Granted we’re not talking about distinct ethnic or religious groups like Gypsies, Jews or Catholics. But a pogrom based on social or political affiliation is still a pogrom.
Anyway, thanks.
I meant to post something for evets, but I’ll either have to do it at work or tomorrow morning.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
This official also said a second proposed change would clarify that only libraries that are “electronic service providers” could be required to provide information to government agents as part of a terrorist investigation
What could be a more fitting gift to show ones romantic intentions on Valentines Day–a sexy UFW t-shirt that proudly says “VIVA LA MUJER”- –it’s even endorsed by Eva Longoria, a very special “Desperate Housewife.” And if you don’t have a little sweetie in mind, you can always offer it to your local female grape picker.
Girls and young women will enjoy steppin’ out in these pretty UFW ladies shirts that say “Viva la Mujer” and that means, “Women Power!”
Red & White w/Gold Imprint: L, XL
White, Red: M, L, XL, XXL : Sizes run small.
Normally: $18, Sale Price: $13.
Granted the UFW does seem to have problems, but unions in the U.S. offer benefits and job security (not in the auto industry), healthcare and pension plans. In the absence of universal health coverage, most Americans count on employers to provide medical, dental and vision care. Leaving the provision of these benefits to employer’s means that nearly 50 percent of all workers have no medical care through their employer, and far fewer have dental and vision coverage. However, for union workers that is not the case. Seventy-five percent of all private sector union workers have medical benefits, 53 percent have dental care and 41 percent have vision care.
It is not legitimate to make one sweeping negative statement about unions, because all workers would be better off in jobs that are unionized—but like all organizations, members must be involved, active and have input.
Abbas,
You were correct, below is Lutheran pastor Niemöller’s original poem—what is interesting is that he initially supported Hitler and then became active in opposing the Nazis’. He was imprisoned at Sachsenhausen and Dachau and concentration camps.
When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
February 9th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Sorry–about my message it got a little screwed up!
February 9th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
The usual sort of crybaby claptrap…..
People have a God-given right to offend. They have a God-given right to blaspheme.
Let’s recall Piss Christ. The artwork was only controversial because the Christian majority resented PAYING for it out of their taxes. The Left sure circled the wagons on that one.
But now, the Left is full of tender solicitude for the opressed, suffering Muslim masses who have to endure the cruelty of….cartoons, and mild ones at that.
Anything, I guess, to avoid discussing the poverty and lack of freedom that plagues almost every Muslim majority country in the world.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Jim Russell,
The cartoons were published as a commentary on a publisher’s inability to find artists who would illustrate a respectful children’s book on Mohammed. They felt intimidated and all refused the comission. So the paper solicited the cartoons and printed them–to assert the right to free speech. Looks like the illustrators were right to be frightened.
I don’t blame newspapers for not printing them, I just wish they didn’t cover up their true reason, which is fear.
Kudos on the PEN action, rosedog.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:59 am
Correction and Addendum:
Correction: Anything, I guess, to avoid discussing the poverty and lack of freedom that plagues EVERY Muslim majority country in the world.
Addendum: Those of you who apologize for the Islamo-facists and their poor, ignorant dupes who have orchestrated these bombings and assaults upon soveriegn territority, in violation of every known international law, are objectively on the side of the Islamofacists. In so doing and being, you objectively favor the hyper-reactionary nut-jobs who champion 9th century Sharia, and you are objectively assisting in the persecution, prosecution and execution of Muslim liberals, progressives and modernists.
February 10th, 2006 at 1:03 am
Here’s an eloquant rebuttal of doug, featured in his comments box. It echoes many of my own views
I occasionally read Mr. Ireland’s pieces and quite often agree with him but I knew he would be totally clueless on this issue. To him and most western liberals, it’s all about the easy black-and-white polar opposites: the good liberal western guys who are proud defenders of freedom of speech and all those evil subhuman western bogeymen those “fundies.” Ireland is completely ignorant about the situation of Muslims in Europe. It is absolutely idiotic to say that “what’s really going on” is an attempt to impose religious censorship. Absolute rubbish. It is about Muslims in Europe sick and tired of being depicted as subhuman violent fanatics, wholly discriminated against as a people, contantly being physically and verbally attacked (something totally off Ireland’s radar). If Ireland took a glance at the other piece accompanying his essay over on opendemocracy.net by Tariq Madood (a FAR more rational, thoughtful and informed piece than Ireland’s one-note simplistic drivel), he’d understand that this is about publishing cartoons equivalent to those published by the Nazis about Jews. THAT is what liberals are defending. The cartoons Ireland apparently admires so much depict Muslims AS A PEOPLE as innately terrorists. The equivalent would be if the Danish newspaper commissioned cartoons showing Moses (with a star of David) as a greedy financier or with blood-soaked hands shooting missiles into children. The simple fact is that this is about SELECTIVE freedom of speech and RACISM (yes, racism — we consider anti-semitism racism, yet Jews are not one race since they come in many colors and nationalities). I use racism because the west treats Muslims as an indistinguishable mass of brown-skinned violent fanatics. Ireland is entirely ignorant of the fact that the Danish newspaper in question refused to print cartoons about Jesus for fear of offending its mostly Christian readers — yet Muslims were fair game. It’s ok to depict Muslims COLLECTIVELY as bearded violent fanatics (and a reason to bloviate about freedom of speech, scold Muslims and feel so innately superior) but not ok to publish (and republish ad infinitum) anti-semitic cartoons. Those newspapers in question would NEVER publish any anti-semitic cartoons; but Muslims (an oppressed, highly vulnerable minority in Europe) are powerless and an easy target, hated, despised and feared. Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with depiction of the prophet per se but with the content of those depictions. As Madood says, “the cartoons are not just about one individual but about Muslims per se – just as a cartoon portraying Moses as a crooked financier would not be about one man but a comment on Jews. And just as the latter would be racist, so are the cartoons in question.” None of this would’ve occurred if the cartoons had caricatured bin Laden or Arafat or various imams. Nor would Ireland and his ilk blather on about freedom of speech if newspapers had published and re-published cartoons of Jews like this one: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/diebow/cover.jpg
If such cartoons had been published, there would be an international outcry against those newspapers and Ireland wouldn’t even bother his time with defending their right to publish them (oh, maybe a sentence or two).
Mind you, I do think cartoons caricaturizing any religion or group–racist or otherwise–should be published but only if done consistently. Muslims are pointing out the obvious hypocrisy: European newspapers have their many taboos but when it comes to racist cartoons against them, suddenly they cry discover freedom of speech. Yes, of course, the violence in some of the reaction in the Muslim world has been outrageous (and stoked by the region’s regimes) but overwhelmingly Muslims around the world have been pretty quiet, even in Europe, where every day in the national media and in the mouths of pundits, politicians, media personalities they hear stuff like “Muslims are a cancer” to “our society” or that they’re “goats and pigs”, where they are consistently denied jobs in professions for which they’ve studied because of their last names and their physical appearance (a dear friend of mine in Denmark has had her veil torn away and ripped apart by street thugs that she’s given up on buying anymore; the mother of an Algerian friend of mine in Holland doesn’t even leave her neighborhood anymore). So go ahead, puff out your chest and enjoy indulging in your sense of superiority. Feels good doesn’t it? But all European Muslims see is hypocrisy and double standards (something they’re quite used to in their home countries). (And no, I’m not a Muslim — I’m a Latina, feminist, secular, Catholic-raised New Yorker who studied in the Middle East).
Posted by: isabel | Feb 8, 2006 4:13:45 PM
February 10th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Nice job Ahmed. Good to hear from someone who actually seems to have a clue about the
people they are commenting about.
I and others thought the main offence taken was a religious one. I never gave racism(negative caricature of the Arab peoples in general as opposed to Mohammed specifically)
a thought.
In response to some taking the ‘absolute’ attitude toward their ‘rights’, you also have the right to call or depict a another persons mother as a whore, but does that mean you don’t expect to get the shit beat out of you for it. I mean, where is the common sense here.
Respect your ‘rights’ for god sake and hold them sacred for useful purposes. Stop using and abusing them in frivolous, stupid, insulting, and childish ways for god sake. Stop defending those who are abusing these hard won freedoms that others have given their
lives and limbs over the years for lest they become not worth defending. I’m talking about defense in the life or limb sense, not in the soapbox lip movement sense.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:09 am
All minorities profess to be oppressed and discriminated against wherever they are. Some may be. It’s a world of connections and without them success is difficult. I’m middle aged, white and have been in America genealogically speaking since my sharecropper ancestor came over from England in 1635, yet everything I do, books, and especially jobs, fails. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with connections in the market, and socially.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Agreed thay no one should be bound by anyone else’s religious taboos. I personally plan to eat pork all day Saturday and gamble on Sunday. This excuses some of the cartoons, but an image of Muhammad with a bomb-turban is just plain racist.
Those of us around academia are familiar with the trope used by conservatives that if you disagree with the substance of what they say, you are interfering with their free speech. This is plain bullshit, and so is saying that the fact that a newspaper has a legal right to publish these cartoons makes them immune to criticism over their content.
Marc, I challenge you to show your commitment to the right to hate speech by reprinting whatever cartoons the notorious Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest produces.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
The text around the cartoons stated:
The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule.
It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context.
we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I think that’s true Eleanore. We can wind up with a timid public sphere where everyone is offbase. These ideas have to stand on merit, but it’s more evidence of how critical it is to keep religion out of government. It’s a personal matter between the layperson and the universe via whatever means they choose. The papers are timid enough as it is. Just try to get one of them to hire you and see what happens.
February 10th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
“I think that’s true Eleanore. We can wind up with a timid public sphere where everyone is offbase. These ideas have to stand on merit, but it’s more evidence of how critical it is to keep religion out of government. It’s a personal matter between the layperson and the universe via whatever means they choose. The papers are timid enough as it is. Just try to get one of them to hire you and see what happens.”
Mainstream media is controlled by six conglomerates– Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric. These companies together own more than 90% of the media market.
Even a C-Span has been corrupted–The World Can’t Wait rally at the White House or the protest outside of Bush’s luxury estate near Crawford, Texas was not covered last Saturday.
It’s unfortunate, that last Friday a decision was made by C-Span management not to cover these political events—a station that supposedly prides itself on objectively reporting politics—so a book talk in some obscure library entitled “Contact Wounds: a War Surgeons Education,” is worthy of airtime but not demonstrations at the White House calling for the end of the war. Ending a war which would ultimately lead to the elimination for the need for such a book.
Omission is a lie—so censorship caused by lack of information from the press about political events is the same as lying to the public.
NPR has staged debates on opposing viewpoints by representatives which were really “PR guys” who were being paid by the same corporation. Boy that sounds like, two candidates running for President of the United States!
February 10th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
I’ve worked for all of them. But at least I was in fiction at the time. At some point they have to make the decison of newsworthyness, anything at the “gates of Crawford” doesn’t really pass muster at this point. Cindy Sheehan has mooted that point for trying repeatedly. Also this effort or any like it has no chance of ending the war. If it did it would be covered trust me on that. They’d be there.
February 11th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Interesting how quickly this has become a debate about what kinds of cartoons you don’t want to have around!
Gee, what about how they didn’t print some cartoons that blasphemed Christianity! Gee, what if I printed some of those Jew-hating cartoons from the Middle-East! Gee, if Europe can’t have Jew-hating cartoons, Europe can’t have Islam-hating cartoons, either!
Gee, kids, in some places they just have free speech, and anyone can print, publish and look at whatever cartoons they want!
Its pretty silly, listening to rich people with broadband who know all about all the cartoons under discussion, talking about stopping people fron having a look at these same cartoons.
February 11th, 2006 at 7:20 am
“if Europe can’t have Jew-hating cartoons, Europe can’t have Islam-hating cartoons, either!”
Samuel,
So what makes you so concerned about Jew hating cartoons since you are a member of the White Christian right-wing?
Let’s show all of the cartons about every color every race in one section of the NYT we can call it Multi-culturists join with religious fanatics to laugh at themselves—it would be a cathartic and therapeutic experience for a world gone MAD!
“Also this effort or any like it has no chance of ending the war. If it did it would be covered trust me on that. They’d be there.”
Mark,
It doesn’t make a difference whether this particular demonstration will end the war—3,000 demonstrators marched for five hours in torrential rain around the White House to protest the Iraq War—it should have been covered by all media.
Don’t dare say that we are a country fighting for FREEDOM if we CENSOR the PRESS!
The PENTAGON prohibits the media from showing coffins or the dead returning from Iraq. What are they afraid of?
THE ONLY THING THAT WILL END THE WAR IS A DRAFT—BRING IT ON! BUSH IS AFRAID TO REINSTATE IT! The BUMS in the White House are COWARDS!
February 11th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Uh….Eleanore. I believe Sam is on your side. No need in alienating more than necessary.
If Bush reinstated the draft, would you serve if called?
February 11th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Sure–but they would have to draft: Lynn Cheney, Barbara, Jenna, and Laura Bush too. We could all be in the same platoon!
In addition they would have to draft the sons, daughters and wives of every congressman and senator.
February 11th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I just think after a while the media just yawn at these displays. They’ve been covered all along thought because I’ve watched them so again some of this and some that, but certainly a trend in deference to the administration. I think that’s clear enough from a number of sources.
February 11th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
They’re afraid of accentuationg the downside. To hear supporters tell it there is no fair coverage and it’s all bad. That’s because it is, not because of a positive coverup. That’s the so-called other side.
February 11th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
“They’re afraid of accentuating the downside”
That alone says something—why should the press be intimidated by this administration?
If the media cannot discuss the “downside” then why do you need them—do we just need stenographers who take down information from Bush and his cronies just to spit it at the public. Is that what you call the Woodward school of journalism?
February 11th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
No I mean admnistration is afraid. The media play up the downside to hear some tell it so I don’t think it’s the press at all. For you no coverage of one event may be enough to discredit them, but the other side sees nothing but down. I think they’ve played it as it lays myself: a nightmare of the Rpublicans own making. Shills will say differently.
February 11th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
For you no coverage of one event may be enough to discredit them, but the other side sees nothing but down”
Protests against the war should take precedence—people need to see that that there is active and united support against the administration’s policies. There is no equivocation or excuse—the most idiotic tabloid journalism is covered during prime time. Yes, C-Span did lose credibility when they did not show that demonstration—public broadcasting is being infiltrated by the right.
http://www.independent-media.tv/gtheme.cfm?ftheme_id=4
February 11th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
I think there is a “climate of fear” as Dan Rather said. It’s fear of offending and what in journalism is known as the “view from nowhere.” It applies false comparisons like the the rantings of a NASA political hack without a degree to a man with a doctorate and 30 years as the head of climate monitoring. It’s not a valid comparison, but on the whole I think the press has skewered the kid correctly. Lead by the NY Times and even the Houston Chronicle. it’s not quite as bad as you claim but is in the neighborhood to a point.
February 11th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Ms Kelljberg:
In reply to yours below:
“Samuel,
So what makes you so concerned about Jew hating cartoons since you are a member of the White Christian right-wing?”
I have no concern about the publication of Jew-hating cartoons, as I have no concern about the publication of anything with the exception of kiddie-porn.
I am a Liberal, so I don’t fear free speech. I welcome it. Go ahead and publish all the Jew-hating, Christian-hating, Right-wing-hating cartoons you would like. Depending upon their content, I will either laugh at them or deplore them, and I will perhaps laugh at them and deplore them at the same time, but rest assured, I will defend your right to publish them without condition or qualification.
For anyone who is interested in supporting Muslim and/or Arab democrats, Liberals and Progressives, instead of objectively supporting the Islamo-facist nut-job free-speech haters who would slit their throats in a heartbeat, here is a terrific interview with Lebanon’s Pierre Akel.
http://www.metransparent.com/texts/michael_young_interview_with_metransparent_pierre_akel.htm
February 12th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Oh my, I feel a twinge of Marxism coming on….how about a dose of reality. This explosive reaction reminds me of the spouse who exploded over the toothpaste cap being left off - it was not about the toothpaste.
You cannot oppress a people for hundreds of years and expect smiles and accolades, like the Bush adminstration said they expected in Iraq. Now they will be taken advantage of by religious fanatics in their own ranks - where else can they go? For that matter, what can you expect a bunch of brain dead Americans to say and do? Whatever…keep dreaming.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:32 am
They oppressed themselves. We didn’t. This just more extreme conservative expectations not based in modern reality. It’s just another aspct of modernity not yet accepted.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:20 am
“Freedom House writes a yearly report about the Arab world. It never mentions books. I have published official Iraqi censorship documents for the 1990s. Emile Zola, Agatha Christie, Shakespeare, Alexander Dumas, and tens of 19th-century Western writers were banned by Saddam Hussein. The list even included Learn English in Five Days. The whole of classical literature was banned by the Baathists”
Samuel,
Thanks for the info–the Metransparent” website is very interesting, below is a list of books that the religious fanatics in our own country would love to see banned. You might be interested in this website
http://www.indexonline.org/
“[I]t’s not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers.” — Judy Blume
The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990–20001
1. Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz
2. Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
3. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
4. The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
7. Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
8. Forever by Judy Blume
9. Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
10. Alice (Series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
11. Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
12. My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
13. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
14. The Giver by Lois Lowry
15. It’s Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris
16. Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine
17. A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck
18. The Color Purple by Alice Walker
19. Sex by Madonna
20. Earth’s Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel
21. The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
22. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle
23. Go Ask Alice by Anonymous
24. Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers
25. In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
26. The Stupids (Series) by Harry Allard
27. The Witches by Roald Dahl
28. The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein
29. Anastasia Krupnik (Series) by Lois Lowry
30. The Goats by Brock Cole
31. Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane
32. Blubber by Judy Blume
33. Killing Mr. Griffin by Lois Duncan
34. Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
35. We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier
36. Final Exit by Derek Humphry
37. The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
38. Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George
39. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
40. What’s Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras
41. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
42. Beloved by Toni Morrison
43. The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
44. The Pigman by Paul Zindel
45. Bumps in the Night by Harry Allard
46. Deenie by Judy Blume
47. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
48. Annie on my Mind by Nancy Garden
49. The Boy Who Lost His Face by Louis Sachar
50. Cross Your Fingers, Spit in Your Hat by Alvin Schwartz
51. A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein
52. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
53. Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)
54. Asking About Sex and Growing Up by Joanna Cole
55. Cujo by Stephen King
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
57. The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell
58. Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy
59. Ordinary People by Judith Guest
60. American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis
61. What’s Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras
62. Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume
63. Crazy Lady by Jane Conly
64. Athletic Shorts by Chris Crutcher
65. Fade by Robert Cormier
66. Guess What? by Mem Fox
67. The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende
68. The Face on the Milk Carton by Caroline Cooney
69. Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
70. Lord of the Flies by William Golding
71. Native Son by Richard Wright
72. Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women’s Fantasies by Nancy Friday
73. Curses, Hexes and Spells by Daniel Cohen
74. Jack by A.M. Homes
75. Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo A. Anaya
76. Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle
77. Carrie by Stephen King
78. Tiger Eyes by Judy Blume
79. On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
80. Arizona Kid by Ron Koertge
81. Family Secrets by Norma Klein
82. Mommy Laid An Egg by Babette Cole
83. The Dead Zone by Stephen King
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
85. Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
86. Always Running by Luis Rodriguez
87. Private Parts by Howard Stern
88. Where’s Waldo? by Martin Hanford
89. Summer of My German Soldier by Bette Greene
90. Little Black Sambo by Helen Bannerman
91. Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett
92. Running Loose by Chris Crutcher
93. Sex Education by Jenny Davis
94. The Drowning of Stephen Jones by Bette Greene
95. Girls and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy
96. How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
97. View from the Cherry Tree by Willo Davis Roberts
98. The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Keatley Snyder
99. The Terrorist by Caroline Cooney
100. Jump Ship to Freedom by James Lincoln Collier and Christoph
February 12th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Mark, thank you for that contribution. Now I do not have to speculate about what brain dead Americans think. That was helpful.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I can see some here are as far to the left as they see Bush is to the right. They seem so convinced all their far left approaches to solving the worlds problems are the only way,
that they become ‘George Bush’s of the left’.
In fact, I am sure they see themselves as not extreme at all, but in the middle or certainly in the ’silent majority’.
Of course, the answer is the extremes on both sides are dangerous to their party affiliation. They lose elections for their candidates if ’seen on TV’. They don’t appear moderate, rational, and many time just not nice people to the voters that count; the moderate, the rational, the people with a life other than politics.
February 12th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
“Of course, the answer is the extremes on both sides are dangerous to their party affiliation. They lose elections for their candidates if ’seen on TV’. They don’t appear moderate, rational, and many time just not nice people to the voters that count; the moderate, the rational, the people with a life other than politics.”
Jim,
Your statement indicates an irrational understanding of why candidates lose elections—The American public wants to have a TWO party system, not a one party cabal with politicians who are basically the same with only slight variation in their ideology.
Democrats have lost elections not because they are too extreme BUT because they were NOT extreme enough. They allowed the republicans to use their BS religious propaganda as a psychological tool to fool American voters.
Democrats did not speak up aggressively and talk about REAL values: Universal healthcare; inflated prices of prescription drugs; exporting good jobs and replacing them with positions that are poor paying and lack benefits; the poor quality of public school education; lack of childcare; repealing tax cuts to the wealthy; ecological issues and the redeploying of troops out of Iraq now; etc…
Voters don’t need to “personally love” the candidate they vote for—they only want to know that the candidate is competent; effectual and will carry out policies that will BENEFIT THE PUBLIC and not just corrupt corporate CEOS.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Well Virgil if you think I’m brain dead your problems are too extensive for public therapy. I’m a liberal and I don’t see how we can be blamed for oppressing arab and indo-european peoples. They seem to have enough home boys to do that on their own. I wouldn’t have ordered this massive remodeling either. Banning books is a Nazi totalitarian tactic wherever it is found. As a liberal I’m against it.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
“they only want to know that the candidate is competent; effectual and will carry out policies that will BENEFIT THE PUBLIC and not just corrupt corporate CEOS.”
Well if Al Gore and John Kerry can’t pull this off I don’t know who the hell can. They were mowed down and portrayed as wackos simultameously by the pious flock of liars. Not radical enough? Give me a break.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
This works for me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12qureshi.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
February 12th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Eleanore,
Thanks for the indexonline.org link. A new one on me and a terrific site. I have bookmarked it.
Just as you say, the US has at least a few million Christians who try to ban books up the wing-wang. Most of us, including most of us Christians, won’t stand for it. Free speech is non-negotiable.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Look, the United Arab Emirates (a fairly mild polity, as regional theo-thugacracies go) just banned Brokeback Mountain.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2006/February/theuae_February243.xml§ion=theuae
Now, will you indefitigable apologists for Islamist theocracy explain to me according to what calculas you deplore the “family-values” of North Alabama snake-dancing Christers while having “sensitivity” and “understanding” for this act of censorship?
Myself, on any such question of censorship, am aggresively pro-fag.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Who pray tell has supported Islamic theoracies? A conservative is a conservative to me. Culture is just wallpaper. The two groups you mention are identical. Banning is banning and a conservative staple.
February 13th, 2006 at 10:52 am
FYI: Arnold Kling coined the term “Folk Marxism.” Taranto was quoting Kling when he referenced the term. Here is the source: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012206D
February 13th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Since no one picked up on my main point ten or so posts back, I’ll put it in another way. Freedom of speech is not an innoculation against criticism, just against censorship. The Danish papers exercised a legal right to print these cartoons, just as the Muslim protesters exercised a moral right to denounce them as the offensive and racist hate speech some of them are. To draw a US analogy, Trent Lott has a perfect legal right to speak in favor of racism, and I have the same right to denounce him for it.
February 13th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Well if Al Gore and John Kerry can’t pull this off I don’t know who the hell can. They were mowed down and portrayed as wackos simultameously by the pious flock of liars. Not radical enough? Give me a break”
Democrats did not speak up aggressively and talk about REAL values–They need to learn how to run an effective campaign– besides Kerry’s position on Iraq is rather “gun ho.” And Gore’s policies on free trade stink.
February 13th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Mark, let me take back what I said - it was not accurate. You are a brain dead liberal
February 13th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Well isn’t that special? It’s obvious from looking at your whackjob website that you went off the rails a long time ago. I recommend a college education. There’s a limit to how much of the world we can actually take over with borrowed money. Contrary to your your belief we really don’t pull everyone’s strings, try as some might to make seem that way. Simpleton’s tend to buy into overgeneralization fallacy that we do.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Virgil,
Yor website is great–the graphics were wonderful and the audio lecture from Dr. Michael Parenti was teriffic!!!
February 13th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Mark A. York Says:
Who pray tell has supported Islamic theocracies?
ANYONE WHO HAS CALLED FOR “RESTRAINT” AND “SENSITIVITY” IN THE FACE OF THIS FASCIST ATTEMPT TO STOP FREE PEOPLE IN FREE POLITIES FROM PUBLISHNG ARGUABLY BLASPHEMOUS CARTOONS —ARGUABLY, BECAUSE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO CLEAR-CUT INJUNCTION WITHIN ISLAM AGAINST ILLUSTRATING THE LIKENESS OF MOHAMMED—- IS OBJECTIVELY AIDING AND ABETTING ISLAMIC THEOCRATS AND SUPREMICISTS AGAINST ANY OF US, OF WHATEVER PERSUASION, WHO ACCEPT THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY AND DRAW WHAT THEY WANT AND GO TO HELL IN THEIR OWN WAY.
IF THE SHOW DOESN’T FIT IN YOUR CASE, DON’T WEAR IT.
A conservative is a conservative to me.
EXACTLY! COUNTRY CLUB PRO-BIG BUSINESS AMERICAN REPUBLICANS, AMERICAN CHRISTIAN SOUTHERN FUNDEMENTALISTS OF MODEST MEANS, SYRIAN BAATHISTS AND THE HOUSE OF SAUD. THEY ARE ALL JUST CONSERVATIVES! EXACTLY! THIS IS KIND OF DEEPLY NUANCED, ERUDITE AND LEARNED INSIGHT THAT ONE HAS COME TO EXPECT FROM THE VULGAR LEFT!
Culture is just wallpaper.
THIS SOUNDS LIKE SOME PRETTY COOL BASE/SUPERSTRUCTURE ANALYSIS YOU GLEANED FROM PROFESSOR PENNYWHISTLES’S MARXISM/UNMITIGATED WESTERN GUILT SEMINAR, BUT FEEL FREE TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF, BECAUSE IF THIS ISN’T A VULGAR MARXIST ONE-OFF, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
The two groups you mention are identical.
ONCE AGAIN! EXACTLTY!
Poor North Alabama snake-dancers AND iSLAMIST theocrats. No difference! Am eagerly awaiting your Anthropology monograph.
“Banning is banning and a conservative staple.”
OKAY, PERHAPS THIS ARGUMENT IS JUST SEMANTIC, AS YOU SUGGEST. IF YOU EMPLOY THE TERM “CONSERVATIVE” TO MEAN ANYONE who bans, then just go ahead and unqualifiedly, unreservedly, defend the the publication and republication of these cartoons. You either do or you don’t.
A conservative is a conservative to me. Culture is just wallpaper. The two groups you mention are identical. Banning is banning and a conservative staple.
February 14th, 2006 at 9:33 am
I do defend the publication of the cartoons unequivocally. As for cultural I’m a biologist, and I say culture is wallpaper. The differences are in their heads.
February 14th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
It’s pretty clear that the rhetoric of Cultural Marxism (Samuel Stott) and Cultural Nihilism (Mark A. York) both help to clear the path for the humanitarian warfare of the Pax Americana.
Conservatism, and along with it the natural isolationist tendencies of ordinary Americans, has been perverted and perhaps damaged beyond repair by individuals and organizations who most of us have become familiar with in recent years.
But “Liberalism” has served as the ideological raison d’etre of the American war machine since, at least, the time of Woodrow Wilson. Not just warfare for the sake of empire, but warfare for the sake of “Enlightenment”, “women’s liberation”, “gay rights” and what have you. (Conversely, the Philippines campaign, before Wilson’s time, was conducted under old-fashioned “Christianizing the Heathens” grounds)
The (let’s put it charitably) “inconsistencies” between rhetoric and practice aside, what really gets me is the smug, self-serving fatuity of a phrase like “they’re oppressing themselves.”
Rather like holding someone down with a boot on his neck and a rifle to the back of his head and going “why are you always blaming me for your problems?”
In any case, here’s another one for the “they hate us for our fweedumbs” file.
*********
Uruknet
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20571&hd=0&size=1&l=e
More abuse of Iraqis comes to light
Truth About Iraqis
February 12, 2006
Video of Iraqi teenagers being beaten and humiliated.
This is western civilization.
This is the liberation brought to the Iraqis.
This is what the US and UK brought to the Iraqis.
Raise the volume - listen to the voice of the British soldier ecstatic that these kids are being beaten.
Shame on every American. Shame on ever Britisher.
British military police launched an investigation Saturday after a tabloid newspaper claimed to have video footage allegedly showing British troops abusing Iraqi civilians.
The News of the World says the film shows British soldiers using their fists and batons to beat a group of young Iraqis.
The newspaper says the video was filmed in southern Iraq by a corporal two years ago. It says the corporal urged the soldiers on during the alleged attack.
The Ministry of Defense said the allegations were being treated “extremely seriously” and an investigation had been launched. The ministry provided no other details.
Read the original report here from News of The World.
The Sunday newspaper says it has established the personnel involved are British, but has not disclosed the identity of the unit or regiment allegedly involved.
It said exhaustive checks were made to confirm the video’s authenticity, which it claims was passed on by a whistleblower, who they have refused to identify.
This is what every US soldier is like, Iraq. This is what every foreign filth that has come into our country is like.
And this is what all the apologists who comment on this blog are like.
This is their face. Their hidden face.
Partial sourcing: AP
February 14th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
I would call those examples straw men. These are not typical and can’t be spread out over an entire population as Hussein himself did readily and often. Typical police action stuff. I understand it makes us look bad, but in the face of bombers it doesn’t pass the sniff test. It passes the overgeneralization fallacy nicely though.
Triple A I’m no nihilist of any sort. I am a realist, and recognize wallpaper when I see it. I’m a trained biologist and we do see things at a different level. Lift your mind out of the culture pit and see yourself as a Homo sapien. That’s what all of us are. Unless you know something scientific I don’t concerning this matter?
February 14th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
“This is what every US soldier is like, Iraq”
No it isn’t. These are anomalies, but of course without being there you wouldn’t have that sort of thing to kick around would you? And never mind the dangerous whack jobs who live there who are the insurgents. Nothing wrong with them, no siree. But as president I wouldn’t have us IN this spot for you to flog. You’d have to get your own ass out the shackles. I’d watch. Talk about a thankless job.
February 14th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Mark A. York Says:
February 14th, 2006 at 9:33 am
I do defend the publication of the cartoons unequivocally. As for cultural I’m a biologist, and I say culture is wallpaper. The differences are in their heads.
Mr. York:
after my aggresive post it is very polite of you to respond so. I don’t understand your point about biology but I look forward to hearing about it.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Abbas-Ali Abadani says:
It’s pretty clear that the rhetoric of Cultural Marxism (Samuel Stott) and Cultural Nihilism (Mark A. York) both help to clear the path for the humanitarian warfare of the Pax Americana.
AS I HAVE EXPLAINED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, I AM A LIBERAL. SERIOUS LIBERALS LEARN FROM THEIR SMART ENEMIES, CULTURAL MARXISTS AMONG THEM.
Conservatism, and along with it the natural isolationist tendencies of ordinary Americans, has been perverted and perhaps damaged beyond repair by individuals and organizations who most of us have become familiar with in recent years.
But “Liberalism” has served as the ideological raison d’etre of the American war machine since, at least, the time of Woodrow Wilson.
Not just warfare for the sake of empire, but warfare for the sake OF“Enlightenment”, “women’s liberation”, “gay rights” and what have you. (Conversely, the Philippines campaign, before Wilson’s time, was conducted under old-fashioned “Christianizing the Heathens” grounds).
THERE WAS A SMALL CONTRATEMPS CALLED WORLD WAR II THAT INCLINES MOST LIBERALS, SUCH AS MYSELF, TO NOT BEAT HIMSELF OVERMUCH ABOUT WWI. I HATE MEGLOMANICAL, RASCIST, GENOCIDAL HOMO-EXECUTING MASS-MURDERERS. I GUESS I’M FUNNY THAT WAY.
WHATEVER OBJECTIONS YOU HAVE AGAINST THE ENLIGHTENMENT, GAY RIGHTS AND WOMENS’ RIGHTS (AND NOTICE PLEASE, THAT I EMPLOY NO SCARE QUOTES) I WILL BE PLEASED TO HEAR ABOUT AND REFUTE.
PERHAPS YOU HAVE NOTICED THAT YOUR MULTI-CULTURAL-GET-OUT-OF-JAIL- FREE CARD HAS EXPIRED.
WHATEVER YOU OBJECT TO ABOUT THE ENLIGHTENMENT, GAY RIGHTS AND WOMENS RIGHTS, LET’S HEAR ABOUT IT. AS I HAVE EXPLAINED, I’M A LIBERAL, NOT A LEFTIST, SO YOU CAN BE CERTAIN THAT i WILL ANSWER YOUR ARGUMENTS, NOT IMPUGN YOUR MOTIVES.
FINALLY, I ADMIT THAT PAX AMERICANA IS NOT A DIRTY PHRASE TO ME.
i’M PROUD OF THE FACT THAT WE AMERICANS BEAT THE DIRTY NAZIS, JUST AS I AM PROUD OF THE FACT THAT WE AMERICANS BEAT THE DIRTY COMMIES.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN AND YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TELL, BUT I PARTICULARY ENJOY MIXING IT UP WITH RICH AMERICANS (ALMOST NO AMERICANS ARE NOT RICH) OF ETHNIC ORIGIN (FEW AMERICANS ARE NOT OF ETHNIC ORIGIN) WHO CLAIM TO OPPOSE PAX AMERICANA WHILE ENJOYING THE MANIFOLD BENEFITS OF PAX AMERICANA.
CORDIALLY,
STS
February 15th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Samuel Stott: “PERHAPS YOU HAVE NOTICED THAT YOUR MULTI-CULTURAL-GET-OUT-OF-JAIL- FREE CARD HAS EXPIRED.”
Hard to notice that something missing that you’ve never actually had.
“ALMOST NO AMERICANS ARE NOT RICH”
I don’t really know what to say to people who view the world through such illusory and delusional lenses. Arguing with them, much less debating them, is always a waste of time.
February 15th, 2006 at 3:53 am
Mark A. York: “I would call those examples straw men. These are not typical and can’t be spread out over an entire population as Hussein himself did readily and often. Typical police action stuff. I understand it makes us look bad, but in the face of bombers it doesn’t pass the sniff test. It passes the overgeneralization fallacy nicely though.”
Mark, I truly apologize. For you “smug, self-serving fatuity” is not just about the odd phrase or two — it’s about a lifestyle and worldview that you’ve embraced wholheartedly.
**********
http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2006/02/thugz.html
[snip]
This foul memory was rekindled when I watched the video of British troops beating several Iraqi teens in Basra in 2004. Like the kid from my youth, these boys screamed and pleaded for mercy, which not only didn’t stop the Brits from bashing them, it seemed to spur them on to further violence. Their cruel excitement was shared by the Brit Cpl. who taped the beatings. The man was audibly enthused, laughing and taking great pleasure in the stomach-turning spectacle. One wonders if the exposure to a war-torn environment ate away whatever humane impulses the Cpl. once possessed, or if the guy was just another sick fuck when he enlisted. I don’t know the man, but something tells me that it was probably a fair share of both.
The official PC stance one is supposed to take when discussing military matters is that regardless of how awful things might be, you still must honor the troops and believe them to be a special, holy breed. To me the problems are structural, not personal, so I tend to criticize the larger system that allows and encourages such vile behavior. But even given that, there are some truly twisted personalities in uniform and at all ranks. I saw it first-hand, from Basic on. A few of these psychos were so anti-social that they were eventually discharged. But I’ve broken bread, mopped floors and cleaned M-16s with those who were not only prone to viciousness and violence, they were steered by ranking personnel into the Infantry or Special Forces. It was felt that they could be taught to keep their darkest impulses in check, while using that crazed energy to master combat training. This clearly was nothing new, and judging from the videos, photos and numerous reports from Afghanistan, Iraq and Gitmo, the same shit goes on today.
When arguing this point with war supporters, I’ve encountered either pious denial, as if the very suggestion of thuggery in the ranks was so bizarre that no sane response was possible; or, when that facade crumbled, direct admission that yeah, we beat, we torture, we sadistically kill on occasion, but what do you expect? In war you gotta break “the rules” in order to survive. And besides, these goat fucking terrorists have it coming. Whether or not all those jailed or in detention are guilty of terrorist acts is never truly examined. To those who get off on the mere suggestion of beating a hooded prisoner into the blood-soaked dirt, the concept of innocence has no real meaning. My physically assaulting you proves your guilt — why else would I do it?
A couple of weeks ago, in one of my rare moments of CNN viewing, I watched a report about Russian skinhead gangs who terrorize primarily African immigrants, killing and severely injuring those who, being “non-Russian” and of darker hue, are asking to be savagely attacked. Those who manage to survive these assaults don’t bother reporting it to the officials, believing that the cops, when not turning a blind eye to the violence, privately support the skinheads’ campaign. One skinhead interviewed on camera (bravely wearing a ski mask, as did his comrades) said that these gang attacks are an effort to protect Russian civilization from the mongrel hordes, and that when fighting “animals,” you must become an animal yourself. And as video ran showing several skinheads repeatedly kicking a young, unarmed man in the face and ribs, I thought to myself, “Hmmm, that sure sounds familiar.”
posted by Dennis Perrin @ 11:45 AM
February 15th, 2006 at 4:00 am
Mark A. York: “No it isn’t. These are anomalies, but of course without being there you wouldn’t have that sort of thing to kick around would you? And never mind the dangerous whack jobs who live there who are the insurgents. Nothing wrong with them, no siree.”
Yeah, Mark. It’s plain as day. Muslims are crazy. Arabs are terrorists. And on the flipside, there are a few bad apples in America and Britain. I don’t understand why the whole world doesn’t see it that way.
However, I’m sure you can figure out the answer if you put that big “trained biologist” brain of yours to work on it. You know, the one that helps you see things at a “different level”.
February 15th, 2006 at 6:26 am
When you claw beneath the facade of many, whether the be called liberal or conservative they are of the same ilk. Defending the indefensible acts of atrocity, humanists with little to no humanity - yes, all good little soldiers of capitalistic genocide in the end for your own personal peace and comfort. You make youselves worthy of every bit of righteous retaliation from the victims of your indifference.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:17 am
Amen, Virgil.
P.S. - I stumbled onto your blog via a link you posted at Nimmo’s some months back (when his comments section was up and running). Good stuff and it’s gotten progressively better every time I check it out.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:31 am
I think anyone who actually believes that American soldiers are practicing genocide on muslims is a complete moron. Go back to your Kool-aid. The great plot to take over the world started by Teddy Roosevelt. Just keep thinkin Butch it’s what you’re good at.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:36 am
I don’t defend any of the acts. I was the first to condemn them, but don’t confuse prison street police tactics and with mass genocide, such as say the Turks on the Armenians, or Hussein on the kurds and marsh arabs for example. No, the Republicans have made this conspiracy all too easy for people,as far out as you two.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:43 am
The differences in appearance among humans are local adaptations to different environments. Skin color is an example. The culture is what’s added, it’s not inherent. It’s environmental, resource based. I’m saying from a biology prespective people are the same but have phenotypic (surface appearance) variability. The culturalists want you to believe they are from another planet. They do this with cultural mythos, divine creation, ignorance of human origin and the history of European conquest because of guns, germs and steel, and so on.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Here’s your homework:
Jouney of Man
February 17th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Ridiculing, insulting and satirizing religion is the duty of every secular democracy. Let’s remember that the offending cartoons were depicting scenes that the Islamists themselves invented: “Martyred” suicide bombers being rewarded with virgins? Killing infidels in the name of Mohammed? Denmark didn’t make that up. And when the “mainstream” spiritual leaders in Muslim countries openly promote terror and hate as platforms of their religion, it becomes necessary to challenge it. A Muslim’s right to worship should be respected, but Islam as an often dangerous and anti-democratic ideology should be challenged, dissected and even insulted if need be. P.S. W