February 07, 2006

Stuck In The Middle

Today's Strib interviews Minnesota Moslems about The Satanic Cartoons.

I feel for them, in a lot of ways, at least for the Moslems that are genuinely trying to assimilate into American and Minnesotan political, economic and (as far as Islam permits) cultural life. It has to be difficult.

And as to seeing your faith ridiculed - well, welcome to America, folks. Christians take it not only from the g-dless commies in the media and the academy (since when is Pat Robertson the voice of American Christianity?), but we get it from other denominations within our own faith. You Moslems might need a thicker skin.

But this bit caught my attention:

"Even freedom of expression has its limits," [Hassan Mohamud, imam at St. Paul's Al-Taqwa] said. "It is not all right under the Constitution to incite dangerous violence. That happened here."
Well, no, Mr. Mohamud. Imams in Saudi Arabia dug up a bunch of four-month-old cartoons, the natural shelf-life to inflame of which had long since expired, and re-published them, aimed at an audience of...inflamable Moslems!
He said he'd ask the U.S. media two questions: "Why not measure the damage you can cause before you publish?" And: "Why are the insulting or controversial things published always about Muslims?"
Partly because Moslems - some, not all, and not representing all - have done some insulting and controversial things. Like deny the Holocaust, crash planes into our buildings, and laboriously justify suicide bombings and filmed beheadings.

That being said, I wonder whose image, taken overall, is worse in the press; Moslems, or conservative Christians?

Posted by Mitch at February 7, 2006 06:00 AM | TrackBack

Conservative Christians - some,not all, and not representing all - have done some insulting and controversial things. Like picket funerals with signs reading "God Hates Fags", harass women trying to get abortions and lie repeatedly about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well that last one is just one particular conservative Christian, but still.

Posted by: angryclown at February 7, 2006 09:02 AM

Right now, Muslims have the edge, because everyone from the President on down to the guy writing the editorials for a college paper go to painful lengths to show that the people strapping bombs to themselves are not the norm for Muslims in the US. I agree 100% with this, mind you, but the same attempt isn't there when Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps causes everyone from liberal denominations to the KTIS morning crew to roll their eyes in disbelief.

Still, Muslims are stuck with the terribly patronizing "Moderate Muslim" monkier from the media. That has to get annoying after awhile.

Posted by: Jerry Leigh at February 7, 2006 09:06 AM

The Angry Clown:
"Conservative Christians - some, not all, and not representing all - have done some insulting and controversial things. Like... harass women trying to get abortions..."

Thus limiting the Clown's chances of getting a date on Saturdays."

Posted by: Badda-Blogger at February 7, 2006 09:17 AM

I would like to see some insulting, inflammatory cartoons about clowns. There's nothing quite so entertaining as a good clown riot. All that silly string makes for great news footage.

Posted by: Kermit at February 7, 2006 09:21 AM

I still think the criticism of the cartoonists and their publishers is all based on poorly-hidden racism. The media can make fun of christians, jews, and us atheists with impunity, because they expect us to react in a civilized manner, but a line is crossed when muslims are offended, because we all know (wink, wink) that they're too primitive and hotheaded and . . . well, . . . subhumanly uncivilized to handle provocation.

What other explanation works? If the anti-cartoonites held equal expectations for all groups, they should either fear offending us, or freely offend muslims with glee.

Posted by: bobby_b at February 7, 2006 09:56 AM

More cartoons...hurry...hurry...we are getting under their skins finally....

Their heads will explode like "Invaders From Mars".

Let the "12 Cartoons War" begin.

Posted by: Greg at February 7, 2006 10:26 AM

The violent lunatic response of some Muslims to the cartoons, doesn't make the quality of the cartoons any better.

The cartoons are firing at a 50-yard handgun target with birdshot from a 12-gauge. On the other hand, cartoonists have the freedom to be dumb. Half of our political cartoonists couldn't exist without the freedom to be dumb.

Posted by: RBMN at February 7, 2006 10:52 AM

"That being said, I wonder whose image, taken overall, is worse in the press; Moslems, or conservative Christians?"

Got any SPECIFIC examples you want to talk about, re: conservative Christian image? Otherwise you're just whining...

Perhaps you're referring to the recent Liberty Council proposal to replace Valentine's Day with "the Day of Purity", in which people are to discuss sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and abstainence.


Franken Fun fact: A Wall Street Journal freedom of information act inquery of Patrick Fitzgerald's research shows that Vallery Plame was indeed convert, and had performed covert overseas work within the previous five years. Fitzgerald's research also shows the CIA was actively seeking to conceal her identity, and that it was VP Cheney who had informed Scooter Libby about Plame's identity.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at February 7, 2006 12:25 PM

"I would like to see some insulting, inflammatory cartoons about clowns."

I've got a couple inflammatory JOKES about clowns, but I won't post them publicly here. They're REALLY bad. Like John Wayne Gacy bad.

Of course, if anyone wants them via email....

Posted by: Bill C at February 7, 2006 02:08 PM

Bill Haverberg wrote:
"Franken Fun fact: . . . "
So, Bill, getting our "facts" from talk radio, are we?

Posted by: Terry at February 7, 2006 02:11 PM

Hence the attribution.

I do not have a WSJ subscription so I cannot search the archives, so I'm counting on the charity of others to confirm this "fact".

If this is true, I'd be interested in hearing other's take on this, considering the leak of a covert agent's identity is apparently confirmed to have started with the Vice President and his deputy.

Or is this "no big deal?" If so, I suspect whoever would say this is putting party over country.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at February 7, 2006 03:18 PM

Re: Bill Haverberg at February 7, 2006 12:25 PM

Her status was covert, because her status was not up-to-date. Covert agents don't drive straight from their homes in the morning to CIA Headquarters in Langley, VA to go sit at a desk all day. The only real secret that was revealed was the name of the front company on her business cards, but that's only because she was still handing the cards out, while not making much effort to hide her association with the CIA. Novak found the name of her front company from her own freely-distributed business cards--not a leak. Any "spy" could’ve followed her to work in the morning and found out everything that Novak found out about her. That, and ask her for her business card.

Posted by: RBMN at February 7, 2006 03:19 PM

you attributed hearsay? From a highly politicized source? Without checking out the original article?
Aren't you suspicious that the article's author and the date it was published were not given?
If this report is true why do you (or Franken) make it so difficult to verify?

Posted by: Terry at February 7, 2006 03:37 PM

There's this article which mentions that the WSJ has managed to open up several of the redacted pages from Fitzgerald's grand jury evidence.
It reports that Libby says Cheney told him, shortly after Wilson's notorious op-ed piece in 2003, that Wilson's wife was CIA and she had arranged for him to take the African trip.
Then there's this from the WSJ,
, which mentions that Fitzgerald told an appellate court that Plame was a covert agent who had carried out covert work in the last five years. Libby's Lawyers are asking Fitzgerald to back up his assertions re Plame, but Fitzgerald has so far refused to do so on the grounds that Libby isn't accused of violating the intelligence protection law.
If Franken was talking about these two articles I don't see anything to get too excited about. Looks like normal legal wrangling to me, but I suppose if you listed certain facts from the article and ignored others you could make it look like there was a conspiracy originating in Cheney's office to "out" Valeria Plame in order to wreak vengeance on her pernicious husband. I suppose that's how Franken sees it, but it's worth noting that these insinuations work better spoken to a gullible audience on the airwaves than they do when they are printed and bylined.

Posted by: Terry at February 7, 2006 05:18 PM

Nice job with the fact-checking Terry.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at February 7, 2006 07:38 PM

Please check your spelling before you post your blogs. And commentators, please stop bashing each other long enough to understand each other's views. I never knew of any situation where a person changed another's mind by insulting them.

Posted by: Roger at February 10, 2006 11:08 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?