mmmmmbeeer

Why I published those cartoons... By the editor of Jyllands-Posten. Why I Published Those Cartoons By Flemming Rose Sunday, February 19, 2006 Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech. I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression. But the cartoon story is different. Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter. At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran. This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding. Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.) Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam. 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, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded. We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims. The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal. One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet. On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those. Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations. I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult. I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism. As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic. The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants. Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them. In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not. This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship. Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons. [email protected] Flemming Rose is the culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. © 2006 The Washington Post Company

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 09:55 AM) And our defense too low. Man, that's what I'm saying. How in the hell did we go from an A or A+ last season to a B this season by only losing A-Row? Interesting.

You're all out of your elements....you're in Donny's Element now.

I was in league 3 last season and would be interested in playing again. If that league is filled up then a different league would be fine.

I hope he does come back to the AL and have a contender look upon him as the savior only to watch him get knocked around all season.

I only watched yours and two others, but your film deserved the vote.

I think any action, military or otherwise, will receive widespread support from around the globe. France has already stated their displeasure with Iran's actions and the rioting outside Paris last year didn't help any muslim sympathies. The rest of Europe, thanks to the ridiculous rioting and burning of embassies, is also more than likely running short on patience. Russia offered a very fair opportunity to Iran by opening their doors to allow Iranians to produce nuclear power on Russian land. I doubt Putin is very pleased with the Iranians dismissal of his generosity. China, they'll veto any action. I don't think that there's any doubt that we're headed toward some sort of serious conflict in the middle east. Whether that conflict is nothing more than a strong aerial bombing campaign or a arduous ground campaign remains to be seen, but I don't see how conflict can be avoided when dealing with that f***ing lunatic Ahmadinejad. Edited to add, I don't believe that a single middle eastern government outside of Hamas or Syria cares for Ahmadinejad's antics either.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) Christian thugs blow up abortion clinics, shoot doctors, and kill homosexuals. So much for a "Religon of Peace" Except I don't believe it, of course. They may be thugs alright, but theor acts are far from Christian. Now you can go back to painting the world with that wide-ass brush you like to use. Abortion clinics are bombed because those people believe that those doctors and offices are supporting and committing murder. There is no widespread fatal violence against gays. These dumb motherf***ers are rioting around the f***ing globe because of a f***ing political cartoon...not murder....not perceived murder....a f***ing drawing. Quit trying to draw comparisons. Oh yeah, apparently I need to add the disclaimer that should go without saying, I'm referring to the f***heads who are rioting, not the muslim religion as a whole. If this isn't proof that those societies are stuck in the f***ing dark ages then I don't know what is.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 05:05 PM) Pimms and soda usually. And yes, I am the only one around here I know that even heard of it. I bought some Pimm's a couple years back, mixed it with ginger ale if I remember right. The rest of the bottle is still in my liquor cabinet and will probably never be touched again. I didn't enjoy the Pimm's experience, at all.

any coconut rum, especially malibu. got drunk at the girlfriend's house when I was 17 or so. Ended up getting ridiculously sick but was supposed to drive home to make curfew. i couldn't even call home. the girlfriend called and told my moms I had bad eggs at denny's and was too sick to drive. felt like ass the next day. also, tequila. i've gotten sick from it numerous times but it never really bothered me much to drink it again. something happened because i can't smell the s*** anymore without gagging. i have actually smelled f***ing tequila in my dreams and it woke me up, with no tequila in the room anywhere.

Tanqeray for my TnT's Beefeaters for my martinis can't stand rum, whiskey, or tequila.... vodka i like grey goose and a shot of jaeger never hurts me

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) Today they aren't... but who knows how things will be in 15, 20, 30, 40 years. This is his last chance to make the bucks. He's not crying the "Spreewell Cry". I think his requests are fair and in line with the market. Has there been any semi-concrete info indicating how much loot he's looking for?

I really thought the Count was comfortable with his surroundings in Chicago. It's unfortunate that a guy from such a meager background, who is already rich beyond his wildest dreams, is apparently putting the dollar ahead of comfort. I hope both sides manage to get something done eventually. I like the Count and want him around for a couple/few more years.

Costco prides themselves on paying their employees very well with both a strong pay rate and benefits package. If any sane person were given the choice they'd rather work at Costco than walmart. Costco is certainly competitive with Sams Club and WalMart considering they have gained marketshare while Walmart expanded as well. They are effective because they get the best employees which enables them to accomplish more with less. Perhaps WalMart should use this b.s. law as an opportunity to reorganize and reevaluate the way they structure their workforce....go for the more productive workers and compensate them appropriately, meeting the guidelines set forth in the law, instead of paying s*** to thousands of marginal employees.

QUOTE(zach23 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) Well, my wife and I have adopted and I have to tell you that this isn't exactly true. We did meet the biological mother and father, but only once briefly. As far as their medical history, they filled out a form given to them by the agency. Did they tell the truth on it, who knows? There are many times we take our son to the doctor and they ask us if there is a history of certain conditions in the family. We have to say that we really don't know and tell them he was adopted. We show them all the information we got from the agency. We also have no way of knowing if the guy we met is the real biological father. The couple was not married and didn't even live together. So for all we know the real biological father may have never answered any questions about medical history. We didn't research or "choose" a child. We went through the long adoption process, specified if we would take a boy, or girl or either, specified what races we would accept, and if we would accept a child from a mother who took drugs, alcohol, etc. We submitted a life book that consisted of personal pictures so the mother they matched us to could decide if she liked us. When a baby became available that fit, we were introduced to the parents, or the mother if the father wasn't known. If they liked us, they chose us, if not they were introduced to another couple. Every agency is different too, some don't do things like ours. Plus, ours was private and would only take clients that were referred to them. We looked into foreign adoption at another agency and with that you even have less of a choice. You basically go through the process and the country you are adopting from decides which child you will get. You can't specify sex, race, etc. Plus in these cases the child was usually abandoned and nothing is known about the parents. So there really isn't that much difference in a child that is adopted and one that is conceived from rape. Besides the obvious that your wife has gone through a horrible ordeal, the only real difference is you know everything about the mother's history and can control the pre-natel care she gets. In our case, the biological mother had almost no pre-natel care. In both cases you may not even know who the father was since there is a chance that the rapist won't be caught. Its hard for me to comment on the original question of this post since it would be impossible for my wife to have a child even if she was raped. That is why we adopted in the first place. If she could have children and this happened, I would respect whatever decision she made. If she did decide to keep the child, I would have no problem accepting him/her as my own. After adopting, that is a much easier thing to see now. Since the day we adopted my son and started going to see him in the hospital (he was born premature), I have never once felt like he wasn't mine. It doesn't matter that he isn't biologically mine, he is my son and always will be. I guess the hardest thing about a child from rape would be if he someday wanted to know his biological father. With our son we decided from day one that he will know he was adopted. We have pictures of his biological parents and gave them books to fill out personal information about themselves. If someday he wants to know more about them, he will be able to. I want him to know that his parents didn't just give him up because they didn't want him. In the case of a rape, this would be much harder. Thanks for sharing your story. I think that's great that you and your wife adopted, giving a kid a better shot in life. I am surprised to hear how little information you actually received concerning the parents' histories, very interesting. I'm with you on loving a child that isn't biologically yours the same as you would your own. I have a 9 year old son who is not biologically mine but he is an important loved part of my household. I do not have any issues with caring less about a child because he/she is not "mine". The question was what we'd each do in the tragic situation of rape. I just wouldn't feel comfortable raising that child. I'm sorry if I offended some folks like Steff, or come off as a cold-hearted dick, that's just the way I feel. Who knows, my reaction could be completely different if I was forced into that situation.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:27 PM) The Christian Conservatives are already mobilized, they are a solid GOP voting block, and stirring them up (or more precicely, calling whackjobs whackjobs) isn't going to cost Dems a whole lot of votes. Meanwhile, they are becoming a heavy anchor around the neck of the GOP. And every time this vocal minority is appeased at the expense of moderate Repubiclicans, fiscal conservatives etc., it is another blow to the unity of the GOP voter base. Speaking as a registered republican, you've hit the nail on the head Flaxx. I'm done with the party until some sense of sanity returns. Their uncontrolled spending, faith based initiatives, pandering to the churches in cases like gay marriage and the like, protectionist economic policies, bowing to big oil, and blatant disregards for civil liberties (phone tapping, patriot act) have all left me feeling alienated. This isn't the s*** that I thought I was getting when I signed up as a republican. For some reason I thought conservatives believed in standing up for the freedoms enjoyed in the past by weakening government and empowering the people through a strong capitalist system. I applaud this dem from Ohio. Chances are I disagree with him greatly on many, many issues but he's rather accurate in his portrayal of the GOP.

QUOTE(GASHWOUND @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:32 PM) http://www.allofmp3.com/ I only use this site to download music since it was mentioned on 'The Screen Savers'(tv shoIw) a year and half ago or so. I've downloaded close to 500 songs so far from it..And you only pay like 2 cents a MB and can choose the quality..reg mp3, ACC, and CD quality.. CD quality charges just a bit more. I love it you beat me to it. this site is a godsend when compared to itunes store, napster, or walmart downloads.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:05 AM) I told you what would happen in my earlier posts. They would vote on their political beliefs - on the issues. And you are wrong about their power being diminished. In both states, the people whose votes were not in the majority still actually count. Right now, that's not the case. In states like NE, KS, etc., the number of actual farmers is actually the minority, not the majority. If the issue was farm subsidies, right now, their votes are not as important, because they are the minority in a bunch of states, never getting the electoral votes. Their votes are worthless. If you remove the electoral college, you instead turn those farmers into hundreds of thousands of votes nationally, and that can make a difference. So again, the electoral college does NOT help states rights, not does it help minorities (electoral). The electoral college really only helps the few states with very large urban populations (and it only helps those urban parts of them). I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, you're making zero sense to me..

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) I simply don't agree with your assessment here. As far as the ratio of importance of small states to large states, the fact that Wyoming has 3 instead of 1 isn't terribly relevant. Either way, it looks unimportant to a candidate. What would make WY residents MORE important to a candidate is if that candidate's views played well to that political profile. Again, the focus moves from states to issues. That's positive for WY's residents. If you leave it as-is, a candidate is likely to avoid WY entirely, since A) it's a given R state usually anyway and B) 3 votes or 1 vote in the electoral college isn't a lot. On the other hand, you remove the electoral college, and suddenly the residents of that state are as important as those in CA. People WILL travel all over the country for votes if their political profile requires them to. If they are appealing to a group of people that tend to be rural, well then, they'll travel a lot in rural states. It's pretty clear to me. Removing the electoral college enhances the power of all individual voters, and for that matter makes the smaller states more important as well because they actually count for something. Plus as stated, it changes the focus from geography to actual issues, and further, it removes some of the randomness of state importance (the imbalance caused by a few given states getting all the attention as "swing" states in that given election year). Wyoming is rural. Nebraska is rural. Utah rural. Montana rural. Kansas rural. Etc. You tell me what would happen if all these "given R states" caught wind that a Republican was going to abolish any and all farm subsidies. With 3 electoral votes each, do you think that they'd have a pretty big f***ing effect on the outcome of the election? Those states aren't ignored, they are pacified. If each of those "given R states" only had 1 electoral vote each then combined they wouldn't have the power of California. The politicians would s*** on those rural states both on the campaign trail and in policy matters knowing that rural states are completely powerless to enact change or resistance. The only change I could see, which could only happen on a state-by-state basis, would be to give states the choice to choose electors proportionate to the popular vote within each state. I believe Maine and Nebraska have a somewhat similar policy in place now.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 07:29 AM) Isn't it all "what your supposed to say"...? Until you put on this pair of shoes - and I pray that no one here or anywhere EVER has to - you have no idea how you'd react no matter what you say. And PA, in the big picture it really isn't any different then adoption is it? It's not your bio child, yet do you think you could love it..? And why would the child not be treated normal..? Do children created as a result of rape come out with "child conceived from rape" tatoo'd across their forhead..? How about this one mmmmbeer.. if your daughter was raped by her husband and choose to keep it.. would you love it? Would you stand by your above comment that you would not participate in it's life...? It would be your bio grandchild... If I was raped I honestly have no idea what I would do. But if I did have the child I certiantly wouldn't blame the child for the way it was conceived. raped by her husband? you lost me there. my biggest objection would be that "criminal gene". with that in mind, it's VERY different from adoption. Adoption you get to choose your child after careful research. A baby borne of rape you not only have no chance to research and choose a child, but you also know from conception on that that child's father was genetically prone to violent behavior. THAT is not something I'd want to get involved in. Like I said, it may sound cold hearted but i have my values and my own life. If my wife made what I deemed as a ridiculously poor decision that I just couldn't live with, I'd have to leave.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) Did y'all know that we are the United STATES of America? Not the United Individuals of America. Our founding fathers saw this as the states getting together and electing someone to be President. Just thought I'd mention that. It seems so basic, but some people lost sight that we wanted power among the states. Each state was protected, in a fashion, from being taken over by another. If not for the electoral college we wouldn't be living in the USA, several states wouldn't have joined the union. I'm certainly curious what exactly has changed today because, as far as I know, states are still not willing to sacrifice power to other states.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 12:42 AM) The GF and I talked about it over dinner actually about a week ago. I always use the " So if your saying a serial rapist and killer took control of you, raped you, and you then became pregnant, you would want the child, with that monsters genes in that child, to be brought into this world?" She agreed, but also said it would be extremely difficult to abort a child, which I 100% understand. That's what I'm sayin' man, I would not want that set of genes in my family. The kid would be resented greatly. Ultimately, it's her decision. As cold hearted as it may be, if she wants the kid and I don't, I would have to leave her life. I couldn't live with a daily reminder of my wife being violated by some criminal. If it were my daughter, it's still her decision. Being I would not be responsible for raising the child or playing a large role in the child's life, I wouldn't split ties with my daughter.

I refuse to put a TV in my bedroom. The wife doesn't like that fact, but I just feel the bedroom should be a place to get away from it all, and TV is not getting away from it all. Not to mention, if I fall asleep with the TV on I have a bad tendency of incorporating whatever is on into my dream. If we ever choose to watch a DVD before bed I've got my computer back there to watch movies. For bedtime noise we have the ceiling fan on high.

#2

pardon my ignorance, but is Felix Diaz still in the system? he pitched reasonably well out of the pen in, what was it, '03 or '04?