Offensive Editorial Context
David Ignatius at the Post still doesn't get it. In his latest column, "Hope Beyond the Rage?", he makes some good points about our own recent history in America and the feigned Muslim outrage over the Muhammad cartoons.
Did I say "feigned Muslim outrage"?, Yes, I did. I say it because it's been MONTHS since the cartoons were originally printed in a paper, some even in Egypt, and when they were no one burned embassies, trashed consulates, or threatened beheadings.
But Ignatius still says:
Here, David, is the problem. The over reaction isn't spontaneous, it's been shown in lots of quarters already (including the paper you write for) that this is an orchestrated, made for TV event, not genuine outrage.
I'd also like to know what made the editor "foolish"? The idea that he would publish in pictures what much of the West feels to be the case with Islam? That he dared to visualize what has been written probably hundreds or thousands of times in the last 20 years? He pointed out a segment of Islam has corrupted their religion into one of violence, which isn't a lie, wasn't slanderous, it was just reporting a fact, in an editorial cartoon kind of way.
The rest of his column contains some sense, in fact I posted on the same topic a few days ago in my "Screw Oil" article. (I should check my sitemeter logs and see if he's been reading my stuff). It deals with a segment of our populations reaction to the word "nigger", which he refused to put into his article.
However, he's wrong also, on certain points. Just the use of the "n-word" as he calls it, didn't start race riots in Detroit, the burnings in many cities. It was the direct treatment of blacks that caused it.
The folks in LA didn't riot because Rodney King was called a nigger, they rioted because of a huge lack of justice in the case, and the fact he was beaten down by a bunch of cops.
His whole opinion piece does point out some of the problems in general of the mass media these days. Ingatius' (or the Post's) refusal to use the word "nigger", the backhanded apologies for the rioting and refusal to show the cartoons that are in question show that his news outlet is afraid to write something, even a single word, that might be considered offensive. They even refuse do it in an fairly sterile editorial context, where it isn't being used in a derogatory way, but in an explanatory one.
Technorati Tags: Islam, nigger and cartoons, David Ignatius
Did I say "feigned Muslim outrage"?, Yes, I did. I say it because it's been MONTHS since the cartoons were originally printed in a paper, some even in Egypt, and when they were no one burned embassies, trashed consulates, or threatened beheadings.
But Ignatius still says:
By drawing this comparison, I don't mean to condone what Muslims are doing in their violent, deadly over reaction to a provocation by a foolish newspaper editor in Denmark.
Here, David, is the problem. The over reaction isn't spontaneous, it's been shown in lots of quarters already (including the paper you write for) that this is an orchestrated, made for TV event, not genuine outrage.
I'd also like to know what made the editor "foolish"? The idea that he would publish in pictures what much of the West feels to be the case with Islam? That he dared to visualize what has been written probably hundreds or thousands of times in the last 20 years? He pointed out a segment of Islam has corrupted their religion into one of violence, which isn't a lie, wasn't slanderous, it was just reporting a fact, in an editorial cartoon kind of way.
The rest of his column contains some sense, in fact I posted on the same topic a few days ago in my "Screw Oil" article. (I should check my sitemeter logs and see if he's been reading my stuff). It deals with a segment of our populations reaction to the word "nigger", which he refused to put into his article.
However, he's wrong also, on certain points. Just the use of the "n-word" as he calls it, didn't start race riots in Detroit, the burnings in many cities. It was the direct treatment of blacks that caused it.
The folks in LA didn't riot because Rodney King was called a nigger, they rioted because of a huge lack of justice in the case, and the fact he was beaten down by a bunch of cops.
His whole opinion piece does point out some of the problems in general of the mass media these days. Ingatius' (or the Post's) refusal to use the word "nigger", the backhanded apologies for the rioting and refusal to show the cartoons that are in question show that his news outlet is afraid to write something, even a single word, that might be considered offensive. They even refuse do it in an fairly sterile editorial context, where it isn't being used in a derogatory way, but in an explanatory one.
Technorati Tags: Islam, nigger and cartoons, David Ignatius
posted by Crazy Politico at 4:15 AM
8Comments:
It must be time for a conspiracy theory, Bob. The USA and Israel are going to nuke Iran, right? But Europe would erupt, you see. The "Muslims" who "found" the cartoon months later, induced a firestorm allowing the Europeans to bring in tougher laws and expel radicals as they do here in Australia. Once this is accomplished, the F16 with the special payload will fly.
As the cartoon "crisis" is inherently surreal, my scenario is as good as any other. Of course I'm joking but nothing makes sense anymore.
Rob
Gotta agree with you on that, it is about time for that kind of conspiracy.
More poeple looking for an excuse to riot and kill, just like they did in L.A. after the Rodney King verdict. They claimed they were rioting "for justice," as cameras captured people leaving stores with widescreen TV's, saying, "It's free! it's all free!"
Disgusting.
I haven't posted on these riots yet either but when I do I'm going to point out how Syria and certain people deliberately supported this and put it out there to aid in causing this upheaval.
It still amazes me though how they are proving our point that they aren't a peaceful religion by going to this extreme.
Great post - I do think that much of this is just playing for the camera. And I don't understand - where were they when Jews were getting trashed? What about Christians? Buddhists? The hypocrisy is maddening. And so is the fact that liberals are still taking up for them.
Like always CP, excellent post!!
As I have stated other places...I think they have flipped their turban!!
It is crazy b/c a few bloggers have been threatened for even posting the cartoon pictures by Muslims.
P.S. I have a favor, if time permits could you flip over...it is important to me...normally would not ask that.
These people are just insane. That's the only word you can use when none of it makes any sense. Acting like extremists and murderers to prove they are not extremists and murderers? Over cartoons published in someone elses country? There's just no explaining away or excusing such behavior.
Nice dose of common sense CP!
Thanks, glad you all liked it.
Wyatt - you are right on with that comment. It's just an excuse.
Rebekah- That's the subject of a future post. I'm supposedly going to be snowed in this weekend and will have time to research and answer that question.
LMC- Looking forward to your post.
Suzie - Left a comment. Thanks for visiting, and I've found a few places blogger has "flagged" for being offensive because of this flap.
Thanks Uber. I agree on the insanity. I don't think an entire religion can plead it at once in court, can they?
Post a Comment
<< Home