2.04.2006

Idiot of the Day

Ahhh, yes. Always reliable, the Woebegone POS provided us with today's Idiot of the Day. Philip Kennicott, Washington Post staff writer and successful moron, pointed out to all of us poor angry fools that humankind is really just too primitive and unenlightened to get along with one another, and that's why the whole Danish-cartoon thing has gotten so crazy. Not, of course, because the entire Islamic world is out of its ever-lovin' MIND, not because theirs is a culture which loathes freedom of speech and recoils at the ideas of liberty and equality. No, not at all. Tell that to the Danish embassy in Syria.

"No serious American newspaper would commission images of Jesus that were solely designed to offend Christians. And if one did, the reaction would be swift and certain. Politicians would take to the floors of Congress and call down thunder on the malefactors. Some Christians would react with fury and boycotts and flaming e-mails that couldn't be printed in a family newspaper; others would react with sadness, prayer and earnest letters to the editor. There would be mayhem, though it is unlikely that semiautomatic weapons would be brandished in the streets."

If by "unlikely" you mean "no way, not ever", than yeah, sure. The God of Christianity doesn't tell his followers to kill those who mock him. Whose religion is it that does that? Oh yeah.

"Fortunately, it's not likely to happen, because good newspapers are governed, in their use of images, by the basic principle of news value. When those now-infamous 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad were first published in Denmark, they had virtually no news value at all."


No news value? By whose standards? Yours? How about this: The cartoonist was accurately satirizing a violent, and intolerant culture, with whom we are, or at least, should be at war with, and the Islamist world's reaction to the cartoons proves him right.

"They were created as a provocation -- Islam generally forbids the making of images of its highest prophet -- in a conservative newspaper [damn those conservatives],"


A provocation? *Gasp* They didn't hurt the widdle Muswims feewings, did they? Well, seeing as that entire culture has not gotten any friendlier, I'd say it might be a good idea to try and get people to think about why we're not getting along. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there are riots, death threats and boycotts going on over a CARTOON which challenged their ideology.

"...these cartoons would have long since faded into the obscurity they deserve."

Because they're offensive? I thought that the media liked offending people. Oh no, wait, only if those people are conservatives and Christians. The article later compares the Danish cartoons to that of Islamist cartoons because of "how closely they mirror the superheated tone" of Middle-Eastern cartoons. So. Danish political/social satire with valid point about Religion of Blowing The Shit Out of People Who Don't Cater to Our Whims is equitable with the blatant lies published in Middle-Eastern papers?

"with distressing frequency, "


Maybe because the problem is not gone yet.

"unrelenting venom and vicious stereotyping"


Funny thing about stereotypes. They're often true.

"Several of the original Danish cartoons are minted in the same style, beyond lampoon or caricature and well into the realm of pure defamation."


Not that the Islamic world doesn't deserve all the defamation it can get, but does anyone actually understand this guy's logic?

"and by far the most inflammatory, is one in which [Mohammed's] turban holds a ticking bomb."


Funny, I thought that one was the most appropriate.

"But, of course, for many Muslims, especially fundamentalists, the nuances of how the cartoons are drawn won't matter. The essential thing is the proscription against any image of the prophet."


Aww...sorry...but not really. Not at all, as a matter of fact. No one but a Mohammedite has any obligation to follow that particular rule, under any circumstances. Not to say that Kennicott thinks that, I'm just stating the obvious. But you know, sometimes these things slip the leftist mind.

"And that is where very many people, Muslims and those who fear or hate Muslims (let's be honest about the degree of rancor on both sides), would like to leave it. People on both sides want to picture it as a fundamental conflict of values, between absolute religious beliefs and absolute political principles, between God's word (as interpreted by man) and the freedoms enshrined in Western democracy. If that's how the conflict is presented to people in the West, then they, indeed, have little choice: Of course freedom of the press, even the freedom, as one French newspaper put it, "to caricature God," cannot be compromised."


Maybe because it IS a conflict of values. See the photo of the bandana-clad fellow holding the "Freedom Go to Hell" sign? Check it out.

The rest of the article goes on to discuss the differences between cultures, and how many years ago British people would be pissed about something we would not about. First off, I'm deeply offended that Kennicott would compare our friends from that foggy island to Islamists, but Kennicott also seems to think that this is really just a big misunderstanding. What he fails to realize is that this truly, truly is a conflict of core values. These....people(?) despise what we hold dear. We cannot get along. Not when their beliefs directly conflict with ours. We would leave well enough alone, but noooooo....whenever someone says or does something that might be construed as an affront to Islam, it must be blown up, or set on fire, or beheaded.

Hey, Phil Kennicott? You're today's idiot.

-The Talent

1 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home