« May 14, 2006 - May 20, 2006 |Main| May 28, 2006 - June 3, 2006 »
Last weekend, I mentioned that major U.S. bookstores had decided to allow Harper's magazine into their stores this month, even though the June issue features the Jyllands-Posten cartoons—something other magazines had been banished for. I also expressed my hope that Canada's single major book chain would follow suit.
According to news reports today, it will not:
The largest book retailer in the country has pulled all copies of the June edition of Harper's Magazine because it reprints a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, according to a media report. Indigo Books and Music said in a memo that it decided to take the magazine off the stands because it may be offensive to Muslims.
Posted by Kevin Libin on May 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
The front page of today's Toronto Star shows Dr. Tim Goddard, father of Nichola Goddard, next to his daughter's flag-draped coffin, his right fist clenched and his face twisted in grief. The subhead reads: "In a tearful farewell to his daughter, Tim Goddard criticizes Ottawa for keeping the return of fallen soldiers private." The Toronto Sun ran with a different picture of Tim Goddard's face twisted in grief, under the banner headline TEARS FOR A SOLDIER. Both, I'm sure, are factually correct. That doesn't make them appropriate.
I happened to hear Tim Goddard interviewed on some Toronto radio show or other last week. His composure was inspirational, as it was during the part of his eulogy that ran on The National last night. I didn't hear so much as a quiver in his voice as he explained how proud he is of the difference his daughter made in her short life.
We live in a time when refusing to behave as expected can make you a murder suspect. The problem is that to a significant extent the media creates those expectations. If you don't believe me just check out the stomach-turning Nancy Grace on CNN. The Nichola Goddard story is one of dignified, confident resolve, both on her part and on her family's. It's a dangerous game criticizing the way people you don't know handle grief, but I think we can all agree that the Goddard family handled theirs with unimpeachable courage. There's your headline. Leave the tears out of it for once.
(Cross-posted to Tart Cider.)
Posted by Chris Selley on May 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBack
Yesterday, Canada Post issued a set of four stamps honouring famous Canadians in Hollywood.
Fay Wray, Lorne Greene, Mary Pickford and John Candy are now on 51 cent stamps.
(Shotgun readers recently had a bit of a dicussion at this post here...
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/04/hooray_for_holl.html
...about which Hollywood figures from north of the border should be honoured)
For my part, I think that these are good choices. Local press stories that I have seen on the stamp series note that philately boffins are arguing that it's about time that Canada started honouring entertainment celebrities on stamps. (The U.S. Postal Service sold millions of stamps featuring Elvis and Marilyn Monroe and banana republics have been issuing such stamps for decades.)
I think that John Candy is worth putting on a stamp. Colby Cosh (for one) would probably want to clobber me with a box of stamp hinges for writing this, but I would have preferred that another figure from the Golden Age of Hollywood (such as a Mack Sennett) would have been honoured before Candy. But, putting John Candy on a stamp will help sales of the entire series and thus lead to more such stamps, which is worth consideration.
Who should be honoured on future stamps?
Posted by Rick Hiebert on May 27, 2006 in Film | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
See it for yourself, It is just stupid, not scary though!
These are our enemies in the War on Terror. I am posting this just as a reminder to those people who often forget what type of a threat this "Radical Islamic Jihadism" can be.
Suicide Bombers gather in Tehran, by Fox News Channel
Posted by Winston on May 27, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (42) | TrackBack
“The author of this report is currently in a titanic struggle with the government Canadians elected. Therefore the contents are in accordance with approved Press Gallery procedure and may not be true to all people. Whatever you do, DO NOT read blogs to correct or we’re screwed.”
It’s a fun read…
Posted by Darcey on May 26, 2006 in Media | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
I have been grieving for Nichola Goddard, the first Canadian woman ever to die fighting in battle. For some reason this struck me as more than the death of someone who was clearly a wonderful person and a highly capable soldier. Like many Canadians, I am intensely proud of her and the life she gave for me, my family, my children, and my people. She is a hero in my mind. Nevertheless, I will always believe that no matter how good they may be, to send women to battle in place of men is wrong, and the fact that we do so makes me feel a little guilty and even shames me as a man. I can’t help that. It is what I feel, and deeply so. And it has left me angry at my country. But how does it make sense to be so proud of her soldiering, yet so upset that we sent her off to die?
Call this a knee-jerk, dinosaur emotion of an unrepentant male reactionary, if you like. That would be the expected and simplistic response. But I ask: How can it be right for a country filled with strong and vital men to send women into battle to die in their place? In their place you say? She chose that life! She loved what she was doing! True. All true. But while an individual’s choosing something, if it is good, makes it good for that person, it does not follow that somebody choosing something good for themselves makes it good, or right, or the best choice for society as a whole. Why do I and so many others feel this way? Why has every Canadian man worth the name felt an inner twinge of conscience over her death?
Well, for starters, women have a unique role in society that men can never fill: they give birth to other human beings and nurture human life in ways that a man cannot. All men know that. And most of us grow up with an inbred awe of, and respect for that natural fact of life. That is, for the intuitive knowledge that civilization comes to a grinding halt – we all die – if women, the mothers of us all, die out. So, it seems (again so strongly intuitively) that although it is a noble tragedy for a nation to lose a single life in battle, it is a kind of double tragedy to lose a woman’s life. For a young woman who dies in battle loses her own life and also the lives for which she was a living proxy-in-waiting. That is because all women hold in biological potential as many lives as they care to create. That is the deepest mystery of the female, and it is why to lose a woman in war is rightly felt as so costly to all. It is this that fighting men know in their hearts, and to deny this truth is to undermine what is sometimes called the life force, and therefore the very fabric of society.
For just as there is nothing higher or nobler for women than to create human life and nurture it, there is nothing nobler for men than to love and protect their women and children, and if necessary to die for them. All manly men feel this call deeply. It is strange to say, perhaps, and against all common sense, but many men love war precisely because it provides them with the opportunity to be heroic, to be wholly altruistic, to answer a higher calling of a kind that all women feel naturally in creating life, but that is not an inherent part of a man’s biological nature. So men must seek out the equivalent. So deeply do most men need and long for this that they will unhesitatingly face terrible odds in battle and willingly die to protect their fellows. Call it a guy thing. But thisis why I say there is something deeply amiss with the values of our society when Nichola is killed, and the same day back home a few hundred thousand very tough men go to work, play their sports, then go out at night to drink and dance, and then go home for a good sleep. It is the truth of this stark contrast that hit me like a body-blow against the manliness of our country as a whole.
For just as it would be wrong and cowardly, and would instantly and naturally incur loathing in any manly man to watch another man beat up a woman for the last space on a lifeboat, it is wrong and incurs a silent shame in most men to see women go to battle in their place. Especially against a Muslim enemy they know is outraged to be fighting against women in the first place, and so is very eager to target them first. And what real man would argue that if we had two platoons of Canadian soldiers, one all-female, and one all-male, both equally prepared to attack the enemy, that it would be right or natural to send the women’s platoon in first? No. That would be against nature and against all manliness, and against the deepest male instinct and desire to fight and protect.
For these reasons, and so many more, I fear we are putting women at risk in war to satisfy a strangely powerful but misguided ideological craving for equality in all things. Indeed, it seems we crave such equality in inverse proportion to our loss of confidence in the great and natural truths of human life. So strong is this pathetic public ideal that we now demand that all things male and female that are clearly and naturally different must be officially denied and made the same at all costs, and we are prepared to fudge the truth and at great expense to change all social reality to make them so. Nichola died for her country. But she also died, whether she knew it or not, in the name of a stridently radical ideology that has been corrosive of the social and family fabric of Canada for more than three decades, and in the name of which she got to the front lines. She chose this because it was available. And it fulfilled her as an individual. So we have to believe she died happy. But as a society it is we who chose to make that choice possible to her, and I do not think any life, male or female, should be sacrificed to an ideal so clearly wrong-headed and against natural truth.
Posted by williamgairdner on May 26, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (62) | TrackBack
Communist China's military will soon have "the power to challenge the United States for command of the airspace over the Taiwan straits," thanks to the cadres' Russian arms suppliers.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 26, 2006 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Unbelievable...yet somehow, from Galloway, not:
The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.
In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"
Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."
From scary to boring:
Mr Galloway yesterday made a surprise appearance on Cuban television with the Caribbean island's Communist dictator, Fidel Castro - whom he defended as a "lion" in a political world populated by "monkeys".
Mr Galloway shocked panellists on a live television discussion show in Havana by emerging on set mid-transmission to offer passionate support for Castro. Looking approvingly into each others' eyes, the pair embraced.
Yawn. After Big Brother, how many ways are there left, for Galloway to embarrass himself? Come to think of it, I'd rather not find out.
Read the story.
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
Posted by wonkitties on May 26, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
A politician is judged by the electorate.
Seems like a simple enough concept, doesn't it? You make promises, you try to implement them, you show the results, the voters decide.
Short of committing a criminal act, that is the only judgment a politician need submit to.
So what good is an Ethics Commissioner? He is not a judge, at least not in the sense of handing out punishments. His role is to ensure that elected officials and their staff understand the rules for ethical behaviour (a concept that focuses almost entirely on private financial interests versus the public trust, according to the code), most importantly where conflicts of interest arise. It's a bit sad that we have to have someone explain those concepts, but an argument can be made that having one person provide a consistent interpretation (as long as it is a good one) is better than hundreds of different interpretations.
But even if someone is caught in a conflict of interest, the Commissioner can only recommend appropriate "sanctions", which aren't defined. Presumably such sanctions would be limited to requiring an MP to divest himself of a certain financial interest found to be causing a conflict of interest.
Even the implementation of those recommended sanctions is left up to the government, where a political decision is made concerning those sanctions.
But some people don't get it. They think the Ethics Commissioner is some sort of watchdog whose job it is to compel politicians to implement a particular policy or piece of legislation:
The lobby group Democracy Watch has launched a formal complaint with the federal Ethics Commissioner accusing the Conservative government of breaking election promises.
The same letter of complaint also repeats Democracy Watch's call for ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro to resign for failing to vigorously enforce ethics rules.
Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch said Thursday that Bill C-2 - the federal Accountability Act - breaks or omits 13 specific promises made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the run-up to the Jan. 23 vote.
Breaking a promise is not an ethical lapse in the sense defined in the code. It is an ethical problem if the promise was broken because of a financial conflict that had not been disclosed. But it's the financial conflict, and not the promise, that is the concern of the Ethics Commissioner.
How to keep promises, in what order, and which to forgo altogether, are political decisions. Sometimes they are made for reasons of crass political expediency, and sometimes for very obvious pragmatic reasons. Sometimes it becomes clear that the promise was just dumb. Sometimes the promise is kept, but had to be modified in some manner, and people mistakenly think that the promise was not kept.
At the end of the day, though, these are issues of politics, not ethics, at least not in the sense defined by the code. The judgment lies with the voters, not with the Ethics Commissioner. Duff Conacher is way off base by trying to pull the Ethics Commissioner into this.
Posted by Steve Janke on May 25, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
You'd think that after the David Emerson thing, the Conservatives would have learned.
But no.
Here they are, treating another MP who is not a member of the caucus with respect, offering him a role with responsibility, being inclusive instead of exclusive.
It's that sort of dirty and underhanded political scheming that prompted David Emerson to bolt from his proper place among the Liberals, paragons of political virtue that they are.
This time, it is independent Quebec MP Andre Arthur in the sights:
Rookie Quebec Independent MP André Arthur, a former shock radio jock, is not ruling out the possibility of joining the federal Conservatives in this Parliament.
A controversial former radio personality whom the governing Tories put on the Commons Industry, Science and Technology Committee recently, Mr. Arthur said that he has not been approached by anyone from the Conservative Party, either formally or informally, to join their party.
"The only thing that I've been approached with is an extraordinary treatment. They gave an Independent a seat on a major Parliamentary Committee--Industry, Science and Technology and that is something that I have to measure, in terms of respect and seduction," he said.
"I think it was Jay Hill [who said in answering a reporter's question] that do you expect Arthur to vote with you all the time and he answered, 'Not all the time but once in a while would be fun.' It's quite evident that for me, this is a hand that's stretched in my direction, I shook it, I appreciate what they did."
That "hand" hides a sinister motive:
[Chief Government Whip Jay Hill ] added that the unusual step of putting Mr. Arthur on the Commons Industry committee has nothing to do with the possibility of enticing him to join the Conservative caucus. Rather, he said that the Prime Minister wants to empower each and every MP so that he or she could play a productive and constructive role in the Parliament.
It's enough to make my blood boil! How are we to have true electoral reform in this country with all these empowered and respected MPs gumming up the works, not doing as they are told by party leaders and spin doctors. Bev Dejarlais, the NDP MP for Churchill, was severely punished by Jack Layton for voting her conscience and according to the wishes of her constituents. No longer an MP, she now works for the Conservatives. Keep this up, and we'll have MPs from all three opposition parties wondering if they might not be happier working for an organization that values their thoughts, and not just their votes.
Imagine how much trouble the Conservatives will be in if that happens.
Posted by Steve Janke on May 25, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Warren Kinsella's blog is blocked in Communist China, something he shares with both this blog and, um, that one. From the Canada file (third item), reprinted in full:
Canada file: John Gleeson (Winnipeg Sun) calls for Prime Minister Harper to treat head-tax victims and their widows equally. Lost in the argument is the fact the under Harper, the amount of money headed to pro-Communist groups in Canada would fall from $2.5 million to zero (sixth, lead, second, second, second, third, and second items); that said, yours truly thinks Gleeson does have a point. Meanwhile, Warren Kinsella finds out his website is banned in Communist China. This quarter hopes it will lead Mr. Kinsella to realize one of the few things his best friend (Jean Chretien) and worst intraparty enemy (Paul Martin) shared (fealty toward the Communist regime) was a terrible mistake.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 25, 2006 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Vote here. H/t Uncommon Truths
Posted by Darcey on May 25, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Want hyperbole heaped on a hockey game? You got it when Colby Cosh talks up the Oilers. Here's an appy.
I hope you saw it; I’ll never forget Ilya Bryzgalov’s sheepish, nervous grin as he listened to the battle hymn, nor how his team fought and nearly triumphed despite being outnumbered by hundreds to one. It’s notable that the wild violence of the first period, in which the Ducks tried futilely to fight back against the voices with their fists, was obviously stage-managed by Todd Marchant. It didn’t work, but what else did they have left? Marchant is a former Oiler; though on the opposite side, he was only doing what he had done for us, against similar odds, a hundred times before. He’s as tough and salty as a slab of horsemeat jerked under a Mongol saddle. I still miss the guy. He’ll die with his boots on. On Thursday.
You’ll want to read the whole thing – the first paragraph is something to behold. Somebody get him the front page of the Edmonton Journal or Ed Sun — at least while the Oilers live.
And somebody, please, for the love of all that is good — give Vancouver another playoff run. It’s a fine feeling — when a city is pumped up, ain’t it?
Posted by Peter_Jay on May 25, 2006 in Sports | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
As I recover from a stomach virus, I put on the China e-Lobby a piece from the China Support Network on the long journey of Lu Decheng (see seventh item) - whose presence in Canada, I might add, is another sign of wisdom of her people in the decision they made on January 23.
Meanwhile, in light of the news from Iran (see below), I'm also including some information on Communist China's ties to the mullahcracy, plus my call for Iran's liberation from Khomeinist regime.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 24, 2006 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
There are confirmed reports from inside of Iran about students protesting in and around the University of Tehran, mainly at Kuy-e-Daneshgah where famous protests against the regime were held in July of 1999 and June & July of 2003.
I have already posted updates on protests against the clerical regime through out Iran, especially in major cities of Tehran & Tabriz.
The Iranian people need lots of international support to be able to get rid of the current clerical regime and replace that with a democratically elected government.
More updates and images can be found at the Spirit of Man blog
Posted by Winston on May 24, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Rooz Online reports that a new line of activities have taken place in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps that aims to organize those who have similar political views and ideologies.
Those who have similar views will become "Political Guides" whose main tasks are to boss the commanders of each unit.
It's very important to mention that the post-revolution armed forces of Iran are tightly monitored by the office of the supreme leader, Khamenei, through offices called "Idealogical & Political Bureaus" which are run by an Islamic cleric as well. Therefore commanders of each unit has some body to supervise him from the supreme leader's office. These clerics/agents have ultimate say in decision making of the Iranian military (Regular or Revolutionary). This sort of clerical supervision was put in place after the failed military coup, by the Iranian Air Force in July of 1980 against the regime, to prevent further disobedience or uprising within the armed services.
The purpose of this initiative, which is undertaken by the political bureau and particularly the “Political Guidance” office of the Passdaran is to coordinate and organize all other individuals at the senior levels of the Guards and provide them with ideological input.
These so-called political guides will act like SS Officers of the Nazi Germany and will supervise the entire armed forces for any possible uprising in time of any strike or conflict and also give feedbacks to the commanders of the armed forces.
That also means the regime is trying to find more LOYAL military personnel in its armed force branches and is also tightening its grip over the military for a day when it is engaged in a military conflict with either US or Israelis.
Cross-posted @ The Spirit of Man
Posted by Winston on May 23, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack
Posted by wonkitties on May 23, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBack
Since last Friday, we've had a political stabbing in South Korea, a brief resurrection of the truth about Tiananmen in Shanghai, Communist silly-talk about Latin America and Africa, and the usually terrific P.J. O'Rourke putting the puck in his own net; it's all here.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 23, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Rewatched this on the weekend. Forgot how great it was, if somewhat schlocky. It is always worth it, to watch Patricia Neal. But more than that, watching this movie again made me realize how little times change. The movie was an exercise in Hollywood preaching, and Hollywood heavy-handedly telling us that our governments are exploiting our fear, and that the media is not interested in reasoned commentary, only sensationalism. (Plus ca change.)
Of course, far and away the biggest advantage to watching The Day the Earth Stood Still, is that we learn what to say to prevent our planet from being obliterated.
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
Posted by wonkitties on May 23, 2006 in Film | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
You wouldn't expect a respectable newspaper to accuse abused women of making up their claims of assault without some pretty compelling evidence—never mind the ultra-liberal, staunchly feminist Toronto Star.
But when it comes to a staunchly feminist woman who happens to be famous for speaking out against Islam, all progressive bets are off. Witness Haroon Siddiqui celebrating the troubles of Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who's lost her seat in the Dutch Parliament after her citizenship was found to have been attained under false premises. Ali, you may recall, fled her family after being forced into an arranged marriage, sought refuge in Holland, and became a strong feminist voice, critical of misogyny within Islam. Famously, she co-wrote the film, Submission, with Theo Van Gogh—the one that fanatical Muslims ended up killing him over.
Or, in Siddiqui's version of events: "[She] told the tall tales the Bush administration wanted to hear to wage war. She told the stories the Dutch, and many Europeans, craved, to confirm their anti-Muslim prejudices."
Yep, that's the Dutch for you—always looking to please George Bush. If you can get past Siddiqui's many logical contradictions (the Dutch desperately needed her bigotry in Parliament, until they didn't) you may want to pause and reflect on his obvious schadenfreude over the fall from grace of a progressive Muslim woman and ask: who is this guy cheering for, exactly? Not even the most naive Muslim apologist can reasonably claim to question that there are some Muslim men who think of women as sub-human. All of them? Certainly not. How many? Who knows. When it comes to a big religion like Islam, even five percent means tens of millions of abused and oppressed women. Ali wanted to stand up for them—and denouce those who would kill Van Gogh (she'd be dead too, if it weren't for her tight security) for standing up for them—and to Siddiqui, that's a bad thing, because it confirms our "anti-Muslim prejudices." So any criticism of Islam is to be silenced, no matter how legitimate it may be? Yeesh. Burn down any embassies lately, Haroon?
But the most disturbing thing about Siddiqui's column, is the fact that he dismisses Ali's claims of abuse out of hand. His evidence that she made up her tale? He called some professor at Brandeis University who "knows" Ali. That guy said so. (When it comes to blaming the victims, FYI, the professor in question, Jyette Klausen, has experience: he accused the Danish government of wanting to stir up a "culture war" with the Mohammed cartoons.)
Imagine a Star writer calling local heroine Jane Doe—the outspoken (but anonymous) rape victim—a liar, because someone who "knows" her said she actually consented to coupling with the balcony rapist. Or suggesting that the outspoken refugees from Bountiful's polygamy cult, Jane Blackmore and Debbie Palmer, were exaggerating their stories of abuse and child molestation because some polygamy-apologist says they are. Can't imagine it? Me neither. Because it would—and should—never happen. Not with evidence that flimsy.
But then, Siddiqui's never been too hung up on veracity. Have a look at this takedown of his May 9 column—where he uses falsehoods to blast Canada's involvement in Afghanistan—by the folks at Army.ca.
Come to think of it, since, in that column, he calls on Canadian troops to save Muslims in Darfur, but essentially demands surrender of Afghanistan's Muslims to the Taliban ("If the U.S. tactics were going to work, they would have by now"), I'd say he's not much for consistency, either.
Posted by Kevin Libin on May 22, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Um, I've described Toronto Star columnist Rondi Adamson as one of the best columnists in Canada -- or words to that effect.
But . . .
In her column published in The Red Star, here, Rondi raises the spectre of a carbon tax as well as incentives for green energy.
Ugh.
Er, in those immortal words of my second-most-favourite-American philosopher, Linus, when he's finally had enough: AARGH!
I'm willing to concede incentives for so-called green fuels which all too often are more harmful than high-efficiency use of petroleum. This was the option the federal Minister of Environment espoused on Sunday's CTV Question Period with Jane Taber.
But carbon tax?
CARBON TAX?
CARBON TAX?!
Say it ain't so, Rondi.
I say, fire up coal-fed electricity generating plants across Ontario -- or Canada, for that matter -- like the one near the north shore of Lake Erie. They're efficient, deliver low emissions, they're cheaper than nuclear to start up and power down -- let alone build or dismantle, and Canada has mountains of cheap coal. Leave natural gas for heating homes.
And leave off a carbon tax!
I say again, with Linus and with conviction: AARGH!
Posted by Russ Kuykendall on May 22, 2006 in Media | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
From a PMO news release:
Public events for Prime Minister Stephen Harper for Tuesday, May 23rd are as follows:
11:00 am – Prime Minister Stephen Harper will lay a wreath on behalf of all Canadians at the First Annual National RCMP Memorial Service.
Posted by Russ Kuykendall on May 22, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
My latest, at the Star, about Rona Ambrose, Kyoto, et cetera, and another, at the Citizen. The latter is behind a subscription firewall, so you can only read the first line. But that first line is funny, really funny!
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
Posted by wonkitties on May 22, 2006 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
As Rondi noted the other day, Harper's Magazine is featuring the Danish cartoons in their June issue (confidentially: I knew they were planning it when one of their designers called my up a couple of months ago and asked where he could find the cartoons).
Anyway, the U.S. book chain borders—the one that refused to stock the magazine, Free Inquiry, for publishing the cartoons back in March, appears to have given a pass to Harper's.
I'm sure this won't be the only bookstore on the continent that makes an exception for Lewis Lapham's magazine. But to be honest, I don't mind. Bookstores are just that: stores. They're not supposed to have any more principles than a Sam Goody's or a Cinnabon should. I honestly believe that the officers of those corporations were fearful that something would happen to them if they carried Free Inquiry, or the Western Standard issue with the cartoons. Of course they did: all the hysterical news networks told them something would. The store operators may not have acted in the best interest of liberalism, or of Canada, but they only owe a duty to shareholders.
All I care about is that the cartoons are getting out there. It may be two months after the fact, and it may require the imprimatur of a mighty liberal like Lapham to make it happen, but anything that makes it clear that these cartoons are not something we should fear, is a good thing. Congratulations to Harper's, Borders and all of the Canadian retailers who choose to carry this June issue of Harper's, for acting normal.
Posted by Kevin Libin on May 21, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack
