The Shotgun Blog
« Opus Dei & "No Pain, No Gain" | Main | I am Woman, Hear Me Do a Mindless Sports Fan Chant »
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Better Late Than Never
I think it's great that Harper's Magazine is running the Danish Mohammed cartoons in their June issue. It's a bit late, of course. I was having a discussion with my teenage niece about the cartoons recently, and she rolled her eyes and said, "Oh, Aunt Rondi. That's so three months ago!" Ah, the young people.
It may be three months ago, but it is, nonetheless important, and part of the broader war. What's great about Harper's doing this, is that Harper's is the only mainstream magazine I know of to publish the cartoons. On top of which, it is leftish/liberalish, so all the Islamist sympathizers out there can't cry "right wing conspiracy/Islamophobia."
According to this report, the cartoons will be published alongside an article by Art Spiegelman, who rates them using a scale of one to four bombs on a "fatwa-meter." Clever. Spiegelman, a good literati, can't resist saying stuff like this, in reference to one cartoon:
"I don't really even quite understand what it's a cartoon of, except 'We don't like Muslims,'" he told Reuters.
We don't like Muslims? To me, those cartoons said, "We don't like Islamists who pervert Islam and do violence in its name."
Spiegelman also asserts that the cartoons were published in Jyllands-Posten in order to "throw pies" in the face of Mohammed. That's not how I understand it. Jyllands-Posten were making a comment about artistic self-censorship, after a children's storybook writer could not find anyone to draw images of Mohammed for what apparently would have been a benign book about the prophet.
Still, Spiegelman comes through where it matters:
But he criticized U.S. news outlets for not showing the cartoons out of what he called "political correctness that smelled of hypocrisy and fear."
Drawing historical parallels with cartoonists jailed in the past, he said, "I do believe in the right to insult."
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
Posted by wonkitties on May 17, 2006 in Media | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834c0651d69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Better Late Than Never:
Comments
there is some thing wrong with the "heading" of this post.
Posted by: Winston | 2006-05-17 9:36:50 AM
"We don't like Muslims? To me, those cartoons said, "We don't like Islamists who pervert Islam comes through where it matters:"
Posted by wonkitties on May 17,
It may surprise you to know that the so-called 'Islamists' are following the Koran and hadiths and not 'perverting' Islam at all. Mohammed would approve of them and recognize them as true followers.
It is people like you, Wonky, and the ever less popular President Bush, who are whitewashing Islam and pretending it is other than what it really is. You and Mr. Bush are the perverts.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-05-17 9:41:26 AM
I was about to write about the same thing as Speller (pig flying today?) but as he has already said it, I'll just second the motion.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-05-17 10:32:29 AM
I think the Danish Cartoons have had a positive effect of waking up a lot of people to Islamofascism for the first time.
I remember reading Harper’s decades ago; particularly it’s rants about Vietnam. I haven’t read anything in Harper’s for years but suspect it is still far to the utopian left. Therefore I’m pleasantly surprised they would even touch the Danish Cartoons. Most of Harper’s peer group took the politically correct position of the Three Wise Monkeys .. Hear no evil …
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-05-17 12:08:07 PM
Guys, guys, guys:
Get with the Middle Eastern lingos.
Why use a long-winded description of these a**holes, when even the Middle Eastern bloggers have a very efficient word –JIHADISTS.
Jihadists.
We don't like Islamists who pervert Islam and do violence in its name.
Jihadists.
We don't like Islamists who pervert Islam and do violence in its name.
We don't like them. The Middle Eastern bloggers don't like them, but some of those guys who I assume are Muslims have found a word (Jihadists) that describes the actions without putting down the religion.
Sort and sweet.
Jihadists.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-17 12:10:30 PM
Mohammed was a Jihadist, and so were ALL of his followers.
Actually, Mohammed INVENTED the concept of Jihad.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-05-17 12:21:45 PM
Speller:
Once again, you point out the obvious.
This is why I believe Osama bin Laden is the most devout Muslim out there.
He not only talks the talk, he walks the walk of killing anybody who does not agree with his viewpoint.
I have investigated the lives of many prophets from many religions and I can make the following statement with 100% certainty. Muhammad is the only prophet of any religion who physically killed his enemies.
Anybody who does not kill people who do not agree with them cannot in clear conscience consider themselves a true Muslim, since that would mean they refuse to emulate not only the words but the actions of their prophet ... they're just closet Christians who don't have enough guts to face the truth about themselves.
And, once they start coming out of the woodwork, you'll see clearly what I mean.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-17 1:16:01 PM
Again I have to second the remarks of Speller and others and challenge the less knowledgable here to actually study the murderous cult of Islam......
Muhammed himself was a murderer and a looter....and this is in the holy writings of Islam....
Wonkitties is being completely foolish or purposely ignorant of the reality here...Bin Ladin and Hamas and the Iranian leadership are doing nothing to pervert Islam...they are following it in a perfectly orthodox fashion!!
Wonkitties and many many others in the West are still illiterate about the reality of what we are facing around the world and have been for 1400 years...
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-05-17 4:22:26 PM
I urge everyone to call Indigo/Chapters and see whether they will be refusing to carry the June 2006 issue of Harper's. If they are, find out why the Western Standard got singled out.
If they are banning Harper's from their stands as well (which I highly doubt), commend them on the fact that their cowardice is at least somewhat consistent.
Anyone here know whether they'll be carrying it?
Posted by: Angela | 2006-05-17 4:34:12 PM
You can be sure they'll carry it -- Lewis Lapham is a Democrat.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-05-17 4:48:39 PM
You guys are right about Islam, Jihadists are Muslims following the Quran and all it entails. You're also right when you state that Mohammed was the only prophet I've ever read about that physically led men into battle and killed men with his own hands.
I also want to point out a huge double standard in the world today. The Mohammed cartoons get published and it seemed everyone was on the side of the Muslims, even as they seemingly burned and killed everywhere they were in protest.
Now we look at the DaVinci Code, this fictional book is written to make very blasphemous statements against Christianity and Christ, and it is celebrated for this! It is the most anticipated movie of the year, a top seller as a book, WOW! How many Christians have burned, looted, raped and murdered over this? I'm confident it is zero. But heaven forbid even one Christian cross the line, actually going against his religions belief system, the whole religion will be bashed for it.
However if you're a Muslim, Islamist, Jihadist etc., someone who follows the actual teachings of the Quran, hey keep cutting heads off, keep burning and blowing up Christian Churches, keep flying planes through buildings, because here in the Western World, we'll keep on sympathizing with you and maybe even celebrating you for it.
Niv
Posted by: niv | 2006-05-17 6:12:52 PM
A relevant comment (he is speaking about Europe, but so go we) by Marcello Pera, Italian Senator and Philosophy prof.-
"...the relativism that preaches the equivalence of values or cultures is grounded not so much in tolerance as in aquiescence, more inclined toward capitulation than awareness, more focesed on decline than on the force of conviction, progress, and mission (which were once typical of Christianity, Europe, and the West)." (from 'Without Roots - The West,Relativism,Christianity,Islam' published by Basic Books, New York)
His main point is that in Europe's (or the west) deconstructionist fervor they have left themselves with nothing , not even the will to live! They would sooner be conquered than fight for survival - and I don't mean a war, necessarily. They hate themselves. Their political correctness does not allow them to PREFER to live in a democracy, as all cultures and values are equal.
Posted by: lwestin | 2006-05-17 7:19:10 PM
Is anyone going to reprint the "For Better or Worse" comic that right-wing religious fundamentalists refused to publish a few years ago??
They refused because of the gay content.
Me thinks that's one comic many of YOU would refuse to publish too.
God, you're all hypocrites.
Posted by: Justin Fossey | 2006-05-17 7:42:52 PM
Gay is a deity? That could explain things...
Justin, even your life must be more than 'being gay'!
Posted by: lwestin | 2006-05-17 7:46:47 PM
Thanks Iwestin, what the hell is Justin talking about here. Gay rights are a completely different issue, and one should point out are considered sins in Christian belief systems.
Why should they print something that they don't believe in? Lets not forget Christians don't kill you for being gay either.
Justin good luck bringing anyone to see your gay sympathizing as an issue in the Islamic world.
Posted by: niv | 2006-05-17 8:39:02 PM
Oh niv - thanks for proving my point better than I ever could...
You say:
"Gay rights are a completely different issue, and one should point out are considered sins in Christian belief systems."
Replace 'gay rights' with 'printing an image of Muhammed' and 'considered sins in Christian belief systems' with 'considered sins in Islamic belief systems'.
So niv just justified the angry response by SOME Islamic fundamentalists. Again I only point it out to say that gays have been dealing with religious fundies for YEARS and now after 9/11 you people are finally realizing the problem with this type of thinking and frankly...it's cute.
Posted by: Justin Fossey | 2006-05-18 6:33:49 AM
From your agument I'm guessing you're eleven. Does your Mom know you spend so much time on the internet?
Posted by: lwestin | 2006-05-18 8:00:44 AM
Justin,
You reverse the point. An Islamic publication would be in its right to refuse to print the Mohammed cartoons.
A Christian publication has every right to refuse to print cartoons it finds offensive.
Neither Christians nor Islamists have the right to demand that other publications refrain from printing materials they don't like.
This is at the root of freedom of speech and freedom of association. You can print what you want and NOT print what you want. You shouldn't either be forced to print something you don't want to or not print something you do want to by other people. In other words, you should be free to express yourself as you decide without being persecuted.
Clearly this logic escapes you.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-05-18 8:20:41 AM
Soooo, I see Catholics in some countries are demanding authorities that take steps against the blasphemy that is The Da Vinci Code. In some cases, there are calls for the arrest people of who go and see the movie.
They're not burning the cinemas yet (which is to their credit), but I presume the many good Catholics here -- all of whom are sturdy defenders of freedom of speech -- will speak out against this outrage.
I'll start holding my breath ---- now.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-05-18 8:46:32 AM
Truewest,
Well, I was baptised Catholic but haven't been back in a while so I may not count but the idea of censuring the Da Vinci Code is idiocy.
Not only is a fictional work whose premise is based on a set of fraudulent documents from France's national library, it's a matter of free speech.
Religious people are free to say anything they want about it (they too have freedom of speech) but they have no right to demand it be censored.
Besides which, the more people try to have it banned the more popular it will be. The church would do more good to simply state the factual errors (which would take a long time...)
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-05-18 8:53:03 AM
If we didn't have a Luddite "Environmentalist" movement and a lot of Communists (I mean Democrats) in America, then we would have a (completely safe and clean-non-polluting) nuclear power plant on every street corner today, and the price of oil would be a little lower (closer to the price of dirty water).
In that case we would have kicked the can of the Muslim issue down the road another hundred years or so.
But, it's here today. The War on Terrorism with the phase one involving planting a freely elected representative government in Iraq is a good idea to my lights.
Unfortunately, it is REAL early in the process and Iraq, although doing very well on the government forming business, needs quite a bit more time to "battle" (i.e. in their halls of congress or whatever they call it) and get their system to settle down.
I actually think that the Iraqi people are going to show themselves to be much more reasonable and enlightened and forgiving than I would be.
I would not stop killing the people who hurt my children or any member of my family. I'm supposedly civilized, and for a long time.
The Iraqi's are going to show the world. If they get the chance.
Unfortunately, President Bush and the Senate visonaries are inclined toward removing the Rule of Law from American governance by way of normalizing immigration law violations which perverted and undermined every aspect of our culture.
So there are going to be fewer of those people in office, in November 2006, than there are today. Along with the deep concern (for potential bribes from slave traders) for illegal immigrants, the bathwater will include American military protection for Iraq's new government.
I'm a "do gooder" in the sense of providing military support for the good of the world.
I've run out of interest and belief in the "gooderness" of President Bush, even in this arena (i.e. the Muslims' possibilities for freedom and a sweeping emergence of good for the world).
So, don't worry about having to worry about "bad cartoons" in newspapers for awhile. The immediate irritant to the Muslims will disappear soon, and they've got a lot of local killing to do for awhile. We kicked this can down the road about three years instead of one hundred.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-05-18 9:32:26 AM
In Warwick's world media ownership and the infinite issues this entails comes down to 'freedom of expression'
So cute Warwick!!
AHHHH!!!
Posted by: Justin... | 2006-05-18 1:08:12 PM
Justin,
Still can't make a point, eh? I suppose it must be tough going through life a moron unable to string together a small bit of reasoning - at least enough to make an actual argument.
You, Justin, are not cute. You're an embarrassment to yourself and your family.
You're clearly not smart enough to follow very basic logic so I won't waste more of my time trying to educate you.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-05-18 1:38:55 PM
I'm truly crushed Warwick. I come here looking to learn new things and looking for hope (that's why you all come here too right? I mean it couldn't be just to bitch and moan and pathetically cling to falsehoods like 'Bush is a great leader' or 'Harper is Canadian').
Oh and ebt promotes violence against minorities so could you all please stop creating an environment where neo-nazis feel at home? Could you please stop it Ezra?
Posted by: Justin = tres sad | 2006-05-18 6:25:10 PM
I’m surprised any company owned by Heather Reismann would carry a title like Harpers in the first place.
Like, isn’t he the enemy of nice in Canada?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-18 8:36:00 PM
> "Spiegelman also asserts that the cartoons were published in Jyllands-Posten in order to "throw pies" in the face of Mohammed. That's not how I understand it."
Spiegelman is wrong and you are right.
Jyllands-Posten has told countless times that the cartoons were published to see if there was a problem with artists censoring themselves.
Jyllands-Posten key articles (in English): http://www.jp.dk/udland/tema:fid=11328/
Flemming Rose: Why I Published Those Cartoons http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3566642:fid=11328/
(from the above link): "So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show it, don't tell it."
Here's my translation of Jyllands-Posten's letter to the artists. Notice, that they did not call for insulting images in particular: "We are writing to you in connection with last week's public debate about depicting the Prophet Mohammed and free speech in relation to a children's book by Kåre Bluitgen, where several cartoonists allegedly have said "no thanks" to drawing Mohammed out of fear of the consequences. Jyllands-Posten is on the side of free speech. We would therefore like to invite you to draw Mohammed, as you see him. The result will be published in the paper next weekend."
Posted by: Ateist | 2006-05-19 5:16:56 AM
> "Spiegelman also asserts that the cartoons were published in Jyllands-Posten in order to "throw pies" in the face of Mohammed. That's not how I understand it."
Spiegelman is wrong and you are right.
Jyllands-Posten has told countless times that the cartoons were published to see if there was a problem with artists censoring themselves.
Jyllands-Posten key articles (in English): http://www.jp.dk/udland/tema:fid=11328/
Flemming Rose: Why I Published Those Cartoons http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3566642:fid=11328/
(from the above link): "So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show it, don't tell it."
Here's my translation of Jyllands-Posten's letter to the artists. Notice, that they did not call for insulting images in particular: "We are writing to you in connection with last week's public debate about depicting the Prophet Mohammed and free speech in relation to a children's book by Kåre Bluitgen, where several cartoonists allegedly have said "no thanks" to drawing Mohammed out of fear of the consequences. Jyllands-Posten is on the side of free speech. We would therefore like to invite you to draw Mohammed, as you see him. The result will be published in the paper next weekend."
Posted by: Ateist | 2006-05-19 5:16:58 AM
Two regular ShotDumb posters are calling for the rape and murder of women on another thread. Why aren't many of you there confronting them and attacking them for their violent intolerance? Oh I get it, they're not muslims.
Posted by: Justin | 2006-05-19 7:06:13 AM
(Breaking my own rule about responding to Justin.)
Justin, In a perfect world, all bigoted, offensive and just plain idiotic statements would be confronted.
Alas, this is not a perfect world. That is probably just as well considering that confronting your idiocy could keep someone so busy, he would have no time to confront anyone else.
That said, you, for once, do have a point about the rape comments - they are disgusting. Is everyone who reads them, whether they comment here frequently, rarely or never, supposed to confront them? What a waste of bandwidth. A thread that deteriorates into tens or hundreds of "You're a pig" comments and nothing else is not worth reading.
If you find that the comments here don't meet your personal standards, leave. Your absence may or may not improve the Shotgun, but at least you will be spared the indignity of unconfronted comments.
On last thing, Justin. I noticed that you chose to condemn people for not confronting those comments, rather than condemning the authors themselves.
You are a hypocrite.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-05-19 8:18:23 AM
"On last thing, Justin. I noticed that you chose to condemn people for not confronting those comments, rather than condemning the authors themselves."
Your keen powers of observation seem to have let you down Kathryn. I have been condemning them for weeks.
Anyway my point was that guys like that feel a natural affinty towards places like this. Their hatred and intolerance are just a natural result of the kind of politics of anger and intolerance preached here.
The left has its problems but while we have people who want to spend too much money and such you people seem to have all the people that want to actually hurt people. That's all I was suggesting and those fellas proved my point.
Posted by: Justin... | 2006-05-19 10:29:09 AM
Hey Justin,
Was the murders committed by the left (around 140 million of them) up to your definition of actually hurting people?
How about all those people who idolize Che, Hugo, and Castro? How about those lefties at all those "protests" throwing paving stones at people's heads. Do you think they want to actually hurt people?
There's a difference between the rhetorical stupidity of some people on a blog and the violent actions that are endemic to the left.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-05-19 10:39:36 AM
By 'left' I mean those that support the spirit of the Charter of Rights and those that think Trudeau was a great Prime Minister, etc.
Posted by: Justin... | 2006-05-19 10:51:23 AM
So you're talking about the nascent left, re-emerging again in new clothes, enabled by its perpetual regenerative amnesia...
Posted by: EBD | 2006-05-19 11:02:59 AM
Am I the only one around here who found the cartoons boring?
But the vetriolic responses by the Jihadists, and how this opened people's eyes to what they are all about, was SPECIAL!
hahahahah!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-05-19 11:14:40 AM
Was Justin alive when Trudeau was Prime Minister.? (Is Justin REALLY alive now?)
I'm sure thare are plenty of idiots on both ends of the political spectrum (and in the middle). This happens to be a somewhat conservative blog and yet we still get the occassional lefty idiot. They're SO good at sharing...
Posted by: lwestin | 2006-05-19 11:45:28 AM
Hey Justin,
Did you know that Trudeau let Cuban military planes en route to start wars in Africa refuel at Gander NFLD? Wars like the Angolan war which killed 250,000 people?
The same Trudeau that visited China as a guest of Mao during the "Great Leap Forward" and came back saying how great the place was as 40 million people died.
The same Trudeau that wore a German military helmet around the Jewish areas of Montreal during his time protesting WWII.
The same Trudeau that brought his bastard whelps to the USSR in the 80's (just a few short years before the end of Soviet communism) to show his brats "where the future is being built." Of course it was being built by slave labour but that doesn't seem to have bother that useless prick.
So ya Justin, I too refer to the same murderous left as you. You're just to stupid to recognise the rot.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-05-19 12:33:26 PM
Hey y'all,
Special presentation, for all you who wanted to see AND hear the Danes apologize for the cartoons.
http://www.zipperfish.net/free/yaafm12.php
:)
Posted by: Lady | 2006-05-19 2:42:47 PM
Don't forget to go to part 2
Posted by: Lady | 2006-05-19 2:46:19 PM
"The same Trudeau that wore a German military helmet around the Jewish areas of Montreal during his time protesting WWII."
Yeah Warwick, apparently he aslo s&#$ his pants until he was like 2 years old!!!
Posted by: Justin | 2006-05-19 8:37:26 PM
In some cultures its not so important what gets said or done. Its all about the glamour. Trudeau was glamorous. Justin really, really likes him. (Where ever did you come up with that potty training fact? What a fan!)
Posted by: lwestin | 2006-05-19 9:36:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.