|
CLICK
HERE
TO VOTE
for BULLYPULPITONLINE.COM at
WWW.PODCASTALLEY.COM!
THE DAILY DIATRIBE
for Tuesday, April
18th
(click here for the RSS feed!) 
 HAPPY
EASTER
JESUS!
And to thank you for dying for us, here's a chocolate rabbit
and some colored eggs!
read it/
hear it
MORE RECENT DIATRIBES
►Steroids:
Why parents, press and politicians should worry
about REAL problems instead. (3-30-06)
read it
/ hear it
►Prostitution:
tax it...don't ban it. (3-23-06)
read it
/ hear it
►Call a Spade
a Spade: and a terrorist a terrorist, even if he
speaks English and attended UNC. (3-14-06)
read it
/ hear it
►American
Ports, Foreign Control: the truth behind the
politics of port control. (3-1-06)
read it
/ hear it
►Boycott Gary
Busey and Billy Zane! Learn why these two
Americans are undermining American-Muslim relations. (2-22-06)
read it
/ hear it
►The
Minutemen: NOT necessarily xenophobic...NOT
necessarily racist. (2-15-06)
read it
/ hear it
►Pop Quiz:
Local TV News is: a) gory b) sensational
c) talent-less d) irrelevant....answer E) all
of the above! (2-10-06)
read it
/ hear it
►Praise Allah
I don't live in a Muslim Country!
Unfortunately
Jihad Momani and Hisham Khalidi do.(2-7-06)
read it
/ hear it
►Surveillance
Cameras: Threat to liberty, or powerful crime
deterrent?
(2-3-06) read it
/ hear it
►Paint, Draw,
or Sketch Islam's Muhammad at your Own Risk! But
Jesus? No Problem!
(2-1-06) read it
/ hear it
►Judicial
Junkets: Threat to democracy, or no big deal?.
(1-27-06) read it
/ hear it
►Google vs.
Bush: Weren't Republicans supposed to be the
party of smaller government?.
(1-23-06) read it
/ hear it
►Al-Jazeera:
Al Qaida's P.R. Firm.
(1-20-06) read it
/ hear it
►Crab:
Why pay through the nose to eat something so flavorless
and deadly to catch.
(1-18-06) read it
/ hear it
►TV's "The
Insider": the fall of a once-decent
entertainment show.
(1-16-06) read it
/ hear it
►Pit Bulls: Why
trashy, lowlife dog-owners--NOT pit bulls--are the real
problem.
(1-11-06) read it
/ hear it
►The Golden
Globes: Why no one should care about these
worthless "awards."
(1-9-06) read it
/ hear it
►The Death
Penalty: How to Fix It.
(1-5-06) read it
/ hear it
►The Death Penalty:
Why it's Useless.
(12-16-05) read it
/ hear it
►The Christian
Right:
Not Afraid of the Devil, but Gay Marriage...Now THAT'S
Scary!!! (12-9-05) read it
/ hear it
►A Bowl Game for
Every Team: Have Liberals Taken Over College
Football?
(12-7-05) read it
/ hear it
►Memo to Liberal
Scrooges: Make Like Frosty the Snowman and "Chill Out" on
the Capitol X-mas Tree! (12-2-05)
read it /
hear it
►Reality Shows:
the
most UN-realistic Shows on Television
(11-25-05)
read it /
hear it
►Mugabe:
Meet the Dictator who Wants to Take Control over Internet
Addressing Away from the United States (11-16-2005)
read it /
hear it
HAPPY RESURRECTION JESUS!
And to thank you for dying for us, here's a chocolate rabbit
and some colored eggs!
Even if
you don’t believe that Jesus Christ was the son of
God, you can still be sure of two very important things: 1)
that he lived approximately 2000 years ago; and 2) that he
was a great man. Sure, Jesus has always had people who
claimed to follow him who he’d probably rather not have
had his name or the name of Christianity (the religion named
after him) associated with. But claims of miracles aside,
if he actually said the things he said and taught
the things he taught about loving everyone including
our enemies, turning the other cheek, and forgiveness of
those who do bad things to us, that alone would certainly be
worthy of a holiday.
And we all
know that Jesus not only said and taught amazing things, he
also did some pretty amazing things too, the most
important of which (to his believers) was being tortured,
then killed, then ultimately resurrected to atone for the
sins of mankind in order to give eternal life in paradise to
anyone that believes in him—regardless of their
previous religion, race, or language they spoke. This
incredible man’s teachings—again, putting questions of his
divinity aside, and much to the chagrin of modern-day
liberals—are the foundation of enlightenment thinking,
universal claims of human rights, and democracies like ours
here in the United States of America. In my book, that
remarkable feat is worthy of another holiday.
And so it
is that Jesus quite rightly gets not one but two
prominent holidays in America—Christmas and Easter—one
celebrating his birth and another celebrating his
resurrection. But what isn’t quite right is the
way that those two days are celebrated by
everyone—including his followers—and in this Easter season,
I thought I’d share my thoughts about the dissing of Jesus.
When you
think about it, even mortals like Martin Luther King Jr. and
George Washington seem to get more respect on the days set
aside to remember their lives and accomplishments than Jesus
himself gets on the days set aside to remember his. And
what’s worse, while you rarely get an argument from anyone
about paying public homage to Martin and George, you
frequently hear people shying away from praising even Jesus
the historical figure and Jesus the man for
the important impact of his teachings on the modern world.
To do so is labeled “endorsement of Christianity” or
“prejudicial” against other religions and atheists, and when
it’s done by public officials, their words are usually
slandered by the liberal left as being “unconstitutional.”
Pretty sad, because unlike George Washington Jesus never
owned slaves, unlike Christopher Columbus he never conquered
and subjected entire peoples (nor did he advocate the
subjection of peoples), and even to some non-Christians, his
achievements equaled if not surpassed those of the likes of
Washington and Columbus.
And then
there’s the ways people celebrate Jesus’ alleged
death and resurrection. While it’s true that some people do
actually attend a church service on Easter (any for many of
them this is the only time they attend a Christian
house of worship), we all know that for most people, Easter
is better known for the hams we eat at Easter dinner, the
“Easter Bunny” who delivers eggs and chocolate rabbits to
kids in Easter baskets, Easter sales at local and national
retailers, and the coloring, hiding and hunting of
hard-boiled eggs. Forget about claims that the whole egg
thing is pagan in its history…the problem for me is that
these Easter customs have nothing to do with Jesus
whatsoever, and in my book, Christians who mark the
occasion of their savior’s resurrection with egg hunts,
rabbits and candy should be embarrassed and ashamed.
Jesus is
at the core of the religion of most Americans, he’s revered
as a prophet of God by Muslims, and as I said earlier even
Jews, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics with a clue know
that his teachings are the foundation of core western ideals
like freedom, democracy and universal human rights. All I’m
saying is this: maybe Jesus’ followers should consider
celebrating his resurrection by doing something that Jesus
would approve of; so this Easter, why not help the
poor have a hot meal, instead of helping yourself
to quite literally suck an egg?
STEROID BANS:
Why Parents, Press and Politicians Should Worry About REAL
Problems Instead.
 In the
past few months steroids have been in the press so much that
you’d think they had their own publicists. It’s either news
that big-league record-holders like Mark McGuire or Jose
Canseco have been “outed” as users, or another sob story
featuring parents whining about their kid whose death has
been linked to the illegal drugs. Or maybe it’s a story
about a shady doctor at a shady lab who’s providing
supplements to athletes, or, maybe it’s my personal favorite
kind of steroid story—a story about politicians at every
level promising to ride in like the cavalry to rescue
society from the evils of steroids and all other forms of
illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Any way you slice it
you’d think steroids were the root of all evil on planet
earth and that we should be thankful to have the press and
our politicians paying so darned much attention to them.
Well, I
beg to differ.
Let me ask
you this…when was the last time you heard of someone being
hurt by a steroid? No, not someone you read about or heard
about in the press but someone you actually know. My
guess is not many of you. Let me ask you another question:
when was the last time that the actions of professional
baseball players on or off the field had a major impact on
you or your child’s behavior? My hunch, again, is not many
of you. One final question—and I really want you to think
hard about this one and realize that I’m being very, very
serious: what the hell difference does it make to you
whether someone—anyone—uses steroids? I’m not asking what
bad things could happen to that person who
uses the steroids…and remember, those potential bad things
are happening only to that person—who, by the way, is also
well aware of the possible side effects of using before
they use. I’m also not asking about bad things like
“undeserved homerun records” or “undeserved state
championships”…I’m talking about real bad things that
happen to lots of people other than the people who
use the drugs. When you put it all in the proper
perspective, steroids really don’t hurt anyone but the
idiots dumb enough to use them in spite of the risks they’re
already aware of before they use them.
In light
of this epiphany, I’ve got some suggestions for everyone
seemingly so concerned with steroids: the press,
politicians, parents, and the public. First the press:
stick to real stories about real problems affecting a lot of
people—not just the one or two morons who off themselves
when they stupidly use these illegal drugs.. Cover the lack
of preparedness for things like natural disasters, terror
attacks and pandemics. Cover corruption in public offices
and major corporations. Cover the economy, employment,
inflation and investments. But stop exploiting the deaths
of a handful of fools from steroid use to sensationalize a
problem that really isn’t a problem.
Next,
politicians: worry about legislating the steroid problem
away when you’ve managed to whittle congressional sessions
down to two months so you can spend the rest of your year
living in the states and districts you’re supposed to be
representing. Worry about the so-called steroid
problem when you’ve eliminated overlapping government
bureaucracies, increased governmental efficiency and reduced
unnecessary spending. In other words, do your jobs and
solve real problems—stop the touchy-feely hearings and
grandstanding. And whatever you do, do not clutter
the already cluttered law books with unnecessary steroid
bans and punishments for the morons who violate them, and
do not waste good public money on teaching kids of the
evils of steroids—something best left to parents and
teachers.
Annnd
parents: parent! Don’t forget about that beautiful
verb derived from what you are—a parent. Do your job and
Billy and Daisy won’t ever think about using the
juice. The time you spend whining to Congress and state
governments about steroid laws should be spent getting a
clue what your kids are putting in their bodies and making
sure it’s not ‘roids.
And
finally, to the public: get off your moral high horse and
stop looking down upon your heroes when they do something
that your ridiculous worship of them encourages them
to do in the first place. The fans and the public made
icons like Mark McGuire, Jason Giambi and Jose Canseco who
they were. Better yet, stop worshipping them and
stop rewarding them with your dollars when you learn they’re
cheating and breaking the law to do so if you’ve got such a
problem with it. That’s what hits their wallets, and
God knows President Benjamin on a bill is more powerful than
President Bush in the White House. And let’s not forget,
the evil steroid is already illegal when used by
athletes in this way, so if you feel the need to morph into
chicken little, then go run around demanding the enforcement
of laws already on the books making the unprescribed
use of performance-enhancing steroids illegal.
Look…I’m
not trying to say that steroids are good or that their
athletic, non-prescribed use should be legalized or even
encouraged for that matter. But on the whole, they’re not
doing that much damage to that many people,
and for the most part, their effects—good and bad—are
limited to the user, who knows what he—or she—was getting
into before they even started juicing. In fact, in my book,
the worst effect of steroids is that they make parents, the
press, politicians and the public flip out unnecessarily.
Now if
there were actually a way to legislate away “flipping out
unnecessarily”—now that’s an additional governmental
intrusion I might actually be able to get behind.
PROSTITUTION:
Tax it,
don’t ban it.
 It’s
called “the world’s oldest profession” for a reason. And
it’s not just New York City’s, the State of California’s or
even America’s oldest profession; it’s the world’s
oldest profession, which should tell us that it probably
involves something about all human beings regardless of
culture, religion or color. And it’s not just the world’s
oldest pastime, hobby, habit or fad; it’s the world’s
oldest profession, which should tell us that for
longer than anything else, it’s been something that humans
do to make money.
But while
turning tricks…whoring yourself out…having sex for cash…and
for my hip-hop readers, “big pimpin’” may be so old that
father time himself might have utilized the services of a
woman of the night, prostitution, to this very day, and even
in America—the so-called “land of the free”—is still quite
illegal. Yes, even though the world’s oldest profession
continues to thrive in every American city (despite being
illegal) either out in the open in the form of hoochie-mamas
walkin’ street corners, or under the guise of the less
threatening-sounding “escort services,” even though it
essentially involves consenting adults engaging in
activities that would be perfectly legal were it not
for the fact that money was changing hands, and even though
its illegal status means that it’s both un-regulated
and that society earns no tax revenue from it…yes,
it’s still illegal.
Is it just
me, or were the first people in the United States to pass
laws banning prostitution members of the Taliban? Actually
those laws probably are vestiges from a time when
American laws looked a little more like Islamic sharia
law than they should have, from the days when things like
using the lord’s name in vain and adultery could get you a
nice fat scarlet letter on your chest or a stint in the
stocks, and when other non-crimes like witchcraft could get
you burned at the stake. But regardless of the reason why
prostitution was first legally banned, there is just no
good reason for such bans across America to continue
today.
Look—just
as I’m not a pot smoker but I still think there’s no
compelling reason for it to be illegal, just as I’d
never pay for a prostitute, there’s just no compelling
reason for grown men and women engaging in otherwise legal
behavior (with the minor addition of a mutually agreed-upon
financial transaction) to be illegal either. None.
But
Jason! Are you saying that you wouldn’t care if hookers
walked the streets in broad daylight…hookers?! Do
you actually want there to be a whorehouse right next
door to you? Do you have any idea what that will do to the
rate of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases? These
are usually the responses of those who are opposed to
prostitution—often on religious grounds—but who at least try
to frame their opposition in more practical terms because
even they know that simply saying “because it’s a sin and
it’s wrong” isn’t quite enough.
My first
response to those more practical concerns is that yes, I
would care about whether hookers walk the streets and it’s
not necessarily my first choice of things to see as I drive
down the road. But with that in mind, there are plenty of
other people that I’d also rather not see as I drive down
the road but it doesn’t always mean that they should be
illegal. Poorly-dressed people, mimes and cigarette smokers
are people I’d like to see removed from public
sidewalks, but that doesn’t mean we need to legally ban
them. Also, it’s not like prostitutes tend to violently
wield weapons at passers-by, hurl epithets, or even come
across as threatening in the least. In fact, as far as
undesirables are concerned, they’re not doing anyone any
harm, they tend to smile at you because of the nature of
their work, and their manner of dress tends to be quite
entertaining too! Also, unlike other things which are
legal, prostitution is not carcinogenic (like
cigarettes) and does not lead to drunk driving, liver
disease and alcoholism (like booze). And as far as the
transmission of STDs is concerned, empirical evidence from
places like Amsterdam where it’s legal actually shows
reductions in STD transmission rates. And before
someone tries to use a straw man argument that legalized
prostitution will mean hookers parading in front of schools,
churches and your house, don’t let them get away with it and
make sure to remind them that if prostitutes were made
legal, they’d be regulated. So just as there’s
not a bar next door to every church or a strip club next to
every school, it’s not like we’re gonna be seeing hookers
hookin’ down residential blocks, in apartment complexes or
in malls. That’s what zoning and regulation are for.
Finally, consider the financial tradeoff: knowing that a
legalized prostitute’s hefty hourly earnings would no
doubt be taxed significantly, imagine the potentially
huge reductions in the tax burden for the rest of us. Just
think of the Nevada example when it comes to gambling.
Because gambling’s legal (yet another behavior many consider
to be sinful), nobody in the state of Nevada pays a single
penny in state income tax.
And let’s
not forget about the shame factor for hookers and
their clients. Just because something becomes legal it
doesn’t mean that people are proud and public about doing
it. Buying porn, going to a nude beach and cross-dressing
are also legal but that doesn’t mean you do those things in
broad daylight in front of your grandparents and children.
A negative social stigma will almost certainly remain
attached to either picking up or being a prostitute—even
when it’s made legal. So even without zoning and
regulations which we’ll certainly also have, you can expect
shame alone to keep women of the night out of the daylight.
And one last point about the shame factor. Unless you live
under a rock you know that rare practice of
prostitution—whether done at a whorehouse or done under the
stewardship of a street pimp—is constantly being glamorized
in American media by shows like TV’s “The Insider” (who
routinely profiles the exploits of New York’s most expensive
call-girl) and the HBO series “Cathouse” (which follows the
excitement at a legal Nevada brothel). But with the
widespread legalization of prostitution, perhaps it’ll
help “deflower” its novelty, make it more cliché, and return
some of the moral shame to the practice that the media’s
glamorization of it has removed.
And I just
want to mention one last contradiction regarding
prostitution in society today. With the exception of a few
counties in Nevada, prostitution in America is by and large
illegal. However, almost anywhere in America it’s
perfectly legal to shoot an X-rated movie, which is nothing
more than prostitution caught on tape, and then sell that
movie to adults in perfectly legal adult video stores. So
what’s the contradiction? The contradiction is that our
foolish laws are telling the public, “it’s only legal to be
a prostitute if you’re going to make your sexual exploits
public and make money making them public, but if you’re
going to keep your prostitution a private matter between you
and your john, well….then we’ve got a problem!” It just
makes no sense whatsoever. If it’s legal to film it and
sell it, then it should be legal if you don’t film it
and make it public either.
Remember
what I said back at the beginning of today’s diatribe:
prostitution is the world’s oldest profession…and it’s
gonna continue to thrive even if it’s illegal. So the
question isn’t whether or not to get rid of it; the question
is whether or not we want to rein in and regulate this
non-crime, and tax the heck out of it. It should be clear
by now how I feel about it, and I just hope that after
reading today’s diatribe, the hyper-moralists who usually
spend too much time caring about the private morality of
others might realize that if they can’t change a species-old
practice in humans, at least they can control it and make
money off the sinners by making it legal.
TIME TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE,
and a
terrorist a terrorist.
 Even Fox
News, the channel that ushered in the term “homicide bomber”
instead of the less potent “suicide bomber,” has seemed to
fall under the spell of excessive-tolerance and
liberal-speak when it comes to the Iranian UNC grad who
mowed down a bunch of students in the name of Islam, calling
him nothing more than a vengeful former graduate student in
an online article dated March 6, 2006. And conversely, it
was actually an eighteen-year-old UNC freshman (yes, a
college student who is normally expected to spout the
liberal rhetoric of the left) who was actually quoted as
daring enough utter the “T” word—yes, “terrorism”—when
referring to Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar and what he did.
And you
can imagine if this is how delicately Mohammed’s labeling
was handled by Fox News, it doesn’t take a PhD in
touchy-feely studies to realize that other print and
broadcast media outlets are equally if not even more
hesitant to call Mohammed what he is…an Islamic radical, and
a terrorist.
Bizarrely,
everyone—including Fox News—seems to be treating this dude
by entirely different standards than they’d be treating a
similar action by a like-minded Muslim in any other part of
the world, such as Israel, for example. Yes, what I’m
saying is that American news outlets are acting like Al
Jazeera when it comes to the way they describe this guy and
it’s both ridiculous and a disservice to their readers,
listeners and viewers.
Forget
about the fact that the man seems sane (as
opposed to the victim of “voices in his head” or
hallucinations, and at least as sane as someone can be who
thinks it’s OK to mow down kids with an SUV), forget the
fact that he’s always smiling and seems to have no remorse
for what he’s done, and forget the fact that he’s made it
crystal clear that the reason for his crime was to
avenge the deaths of Muslims at the hands of Americans and
to “spread the will of Allah” (incidentally, the very
same rhetoric used by other Muslim radicals to “justify”
their actions or as I prefer to call them, TERRORISTS).
Yup, it seems that in the mind of the American media, what
makes someone a terrorist are the incidental and now-cliché
things like a bomber-vest, box-cutter and low-quality video
for broadcast on Al-Jazeera after your death, and not, as it
turns out, the substantive motivations that lead
other jihadis to do what they do, nor other, more
novel ways of harming innocent civilians that justify the
terrorist label.
Look, I’m
not saying this idiot doesn’t deserve due process, a fair
trial and a presumption of innocence by the legal
system, but what I am saying is that if it quacks
and waddles like a duck, it’s a duck, and if it
spouts anti-American rhetoric and engages in violence
against innocent civilians in the name of revenge on behalf
of Muslims like a terrorist, it’s a terrorist. So
let’s not play word games that only deceive and delude
ourselves; let’s call a spade a spade, and a terrorist a
terrorist—whether he’s English-speaking and
American-educated, or whether he speaks Farsi and lives in
Tehran.
AMERICAN
PORTS, FOREIGN CONTROL:
The truth
behind the politics of port control.
 Well it’s
getting nasty inside the beltway again, and it’s just the
kind of nastiness I enjoy: when prominent members of both
parties team up to go head-to-head with the administration.
Every now and then it’s just nice to have a break from the
typical Democrat v. Republican scuffles we’re used to and to
have the opportunity to enjoy one of those rare battles
between the two most powerful branches of the federal
government—the executive and the legislative.
In this
particular case, the fuss is over one of my favorite topics:
relations between America and the Muslim world. And the
bipartisan uproar over the recent sale of a company that
handles port operations at certain U.S. ports to a company
owned by the United Arab Emirates makes it sound like ships
pulling into those ports will be welcomed by turban-clad,
Quran-thumping, Al Qaida members, happily ignoring U.S. laws
and regulations and instead laying the foundation for their
next big attack.
Now look:
I’m as concerned (if not a lot more concerned) about
homeland security as anyone and I’m the first person to
raise a red flag when it’s warranted to do so. And my point
here is not to say that a sale like this shouldn’t be
scrutinized to the fullest. It should be
scrutinized (which the administration says it’s already
done), and politically, it would have also been a good idea
for the Bush administration to at the very least run it past
Congressional leaders to avoid getting so much egg on its
face and opening up divisions within the Republican party.
But what
annoys me about this case of bipartisan grandstanding is not
so much its substance but rather its hypocrisy. For
example, congressional Democrats and Republicans
criticize the fact that the United Arab Emirates was one of
only a handful of countries to officially recognize the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan, to not recognize the
state of Israel, and they point out that UAE financial
institutions were used to funnel money to the 9-11
terrorists. Horrible? Yes. But unique? No.
Despite
the fact that the UAE was one of only a few countries to
recognize the Taliban, not to recognize Israel, and
whose financial institutions were used to funnel money to Al
Qaida, it wasn’t as if the other countries to do so were
insignificant, because they also included Saudi Arabia
and Pakistan—two of our biggest allies in the
war on terror, and arguably far more dangerous in their
support for the Taliban and Al Qaida than the UAE. After
all, Saudi Arabia, whose oil we all cheerfully pump into our
cars without hesitation or a second thought about where it
originally came from (and therefore who might be making
money off us each time we fill up), is where most of the
9-11 hijackers came from, the homeland of Osama Bin Laden
himself (who was later expelled for threatening the regime),
and most importantly, the source of funding for Islamic
Madrassas across the globe responsible for a large part of
the widespread and irrational hatred of America throughout
the Muslim world. But both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, like
the UAE, continue to make strides in the direction of
purging terrorists from their midst, the Bush administration
considers both to be key allies in the war on terror, and I
agree that to criticize the UAE for the same offenses in
spite of its help in the war on terror is a slap in the face
to it, and to the Saudis and Paks who are just as guilty of
the same offenses.
But that’s
not all…another fact you’ll rarely if ever see or
hear reported is that in addition to these Muslim countries,
another key country found itself in the financial loop of
the 9-11 terrorists: THE UNITED STATES. Here’s a direct
quote from a 9-11 commission staff report: “The September 11
hijackers used U.S. and foreign financial
institutions to hold, move, and retrieve their money. The
hijackers deposited money into U.S. accounts,
primarily by wire transfers and deposits of cash or
travelers checks brought from overseas. Additionally,
several of them kept funds in foreign accounts, which they
accessed in the United States
through ATM and credit card transactions.” Of course, no
one would claim that America’s domestic link in the chain of
terror financing should disqualify us from running our own
ports.
The final
bit of hypocrisy I’d like to point out involves the control
and operation of U.S. ports. Not only are ports publicly
owned and only leased to companies—including the UAE
company, and not only are all port workers union members and
U.S. citizens, but the majority of U.S. ports are
already operated by foreign companies—including
companies based in China, that great bastion of democracy
and human rights who, despite producing much of the
affordable merchandise at Wal Marts and Dollar Stores across
America, likely has at least a few nuclear missiles aimed at
the US at this very second.
And this
last point leads me to a final thought on this topic, and a
possible silver lining in this whole port control mess.
See, when you own something and make a lot of money from it,
you’re less likely to want to hurt or destroy it. So just
as China’s less likely to actually fire a nuke at it’s best
customer—the United States, and just as the Saudi’s—in spite
of their Wahhabi, non-American way of life—are helping us
avoid future terror attacks on US soil because it doesn’t
want to deal with a backlash from its best customer,
maybe…just maybe…letting an Arab company run a few terminals
at a few U.S. ports might help ensure that folks from that
country’s neck of the woods will be less likely to want to
do us harm. And because we’re talking about an actual
country and not a hard-to-find non-state actor like
Al-Qaida, if they’re actually foolish enough to allow harm
to come to America through our ports, they’ll know they can
expect instantaneous and overwhelming retaliation that will
make what we did to the Taliban look like we were just
warming up.
READ
MORE HERE
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9918/uae_purchase_of_american_port_facilities.html#6
BOYCOTT BUSEY & INSANE
BILLY ZANE:
Why there is no equivalence between Muhammad Cartoons and a
New Turkish Movie.
  When the
Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo were being slaughtered by their
Christian neighbors in Serbia, it wasn’t the armies of Saudi
Arabia (the home of Mecca), Pakistan (the only known nuclear
power in the Muslim world), or Indonesia (where more Muslims
live than in any other country in the world) that came to
their defense. The mainly-Christian United States and the
West did.
When the
tsunami hit Indonesia and other Muslim-populated areas,
relief donations by the United States more than four
times exceeded those of Islamic Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates combined.
(source: turkishpress.com)
When
Muslim Pakistan was hit with an earthquake last year killing
80,000 and leaving millions more homeless and hungry, it was
again the United States coming through with aid
contributions surpassing those of any Muslim country.
But it
seems that regardless of all the good we do in situations
like these around the world, and regardless of the fact that
our oil addiction keeps many Muslim economies afloat, the
fact that we support Israel, and the fact that we are
perceived as Godless heathens keeps us as perpetual entries
on the Muslim world’s shit list. And because I think that
Islam’s hatred of America and the West is rooted primarily
in their resentment of our successes in spite of our
“Godlessness,” I believe this hatred would still exist if
we had never invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. And in fact,
it did indeed exist prior to even the first gulf war.
In other
words, what I’m trying to say here is that despite the fact
that in recent world history the US and the mainly-Christian
West have done more to help the Muslim world than any other
country in the Muslim world itself, we sadly don’t need
any help in demonizing America and convincing the Muslim
world that America and the West are no good.
The flap
over the Mohammed cartoons that we’ve all heard about and
that I’ve written about in two earlier blogs have
shown us that the Muslim world’s ire is well-armed and on a
short fuse that even the slightest non-violent
provocation will cause to explode into bloody
demonstrations, trade boycotts, diplomatic rifts, and the
now-cliché Islamic death sentence (fatwa). If this is what
happens because of a cartoon, it doesn’t take a rogue
nuclear scientist to tell you that an even less-satirical
and more realistic portrayal of the already-hated
Americans will not mend any fences between the West
and Islam.
But that’s
precisely what actors Gary Busey and Billy Zane have helped
filmmakers do in a new Turkish movie called “Valley
of the Wolves, Iraq.” In this, the most expensive
Turkish movie ever made, Zane plays an American soldier who
oversees the slaughter of innocent Iraqi women and children
at a wedding, and who then takes the survivors of the
massacre to Abu Ghraib where a Jewish American doctor,
played by Busey, cuts out their organs for sale in London,
Tel Aviv, and of course, New York. In Turkey, the most
“liberal” and “pro-West” of Muslim countries where 53
percent of those responding to a recent Pew Global Attitudes
survey associated Americans with the word "rude"; 70 percent
with "violent"; 68 percent with "greedy"; and 57 percent
with "immoral," advance tickets are selling out and
Istanbul’s mayor said about the movie, “The scenario is
great.”
Now I’m
not saying that Gary and Billy shouldn’t have the freedom to
choose the movie roles they play, nor am I calling for a
bounty to be put on their heads for these or any other roles
they may play—no matter how anti-American, and no matter how
blasphemous. I’m not calling for their expulsion from the
Screen Actor’s Guild or from the United States itself, and
I’m not calling for an ounce of jail time to be done by
either. Those things would be the typically-Muslim
response to such transgressions.
But I am
calling for the beautifully-democratic response:
boycott—the choice of free peoples to not give one ounce
of support to the work and causes of these individuals as a
symbolic expression of displeasure with their poor
decisions, and to let them know that their decisions and
actions have consequences—and in this case quite negative
consequences—that extend far beyond the paychecks they
received for their work on the film…consequences that will
extend to the rest of us Americans and the freedom-loving,
democratic, Judeo-Christian west.
While this
anti-American movie is a fictional portrayal of Americans
just like the satirical cartoons of Muhammad are clearly
fictional portrayals of Islam’s prophet, there’s still quite
a big difference between the two. While the cartoons of
Muhammad inflamed anti-American passions throughout Islam,
they actually created a pro-Muslim/pro-tolerance backlash in
America and the West where the cartoons first originated.
Editors who published them were fired and suspended,
peaceful interfaith protests underscoring the west’s
religious tolerance were organized, and political leaders of
western countries publicly condemned the cartoon’s
publishing even though the publishing was done by a private,
non-government entity.
But to me,
the new Turkish movie is quite different; although
fictional, I predict that it’s going to be viewed throughout
the Muslim world as evidence of American atrocities and
American evil. If I’m right this will only further inflame
anti-Western sentiment and lead to Muslim public opinion
that is more likely to want to develop nuclear weapons, hate
America and its people, and support terror. The other key
difference in the aftermath of the cartoon publications and
the release of this movie is that the west—although it will
not enjoy or embrace the movie—will certainly
not threaten to sever diplomatic relations with
Turkey, call for the Turkish government to publicly censure
the filmmakers, or allow the kid of violence against Turkish
interests to take place that many Muslim countries have
allowed to take place against western interests in the wake
of the cartoons. And while Denmark’s embarrassment has been
made public in the Arab world in the form of full-page
apologies in Saudi and other Muslim newspapers, showing that
the west does indeed care about how some among us made
Muslims feel, I’m willing to bet money that no such shame
will ever come to the Turkish filmmakers, nor will the
west’s outrage that such a movie was ever created in the
first place ever be known in the Muslim world.
I really,
really hope I’m wrong about everything I’ve just
written, and I hope that Muslims will actually rise up in
anger against this movie just as they did against the
cartoons. But as much as I enjoy being right about most
things, this is one of those rare occasions where a
dangerous likely outcome makes it something I’d rather be
wrong about.
Either
way, boycott Busey and Zane; and forgive them, for they know
not what they do.
THE MINUTEMEN:
Not necessarily xenophobic…not necessarily racist.
 The
political left and so-called Mexican-American and Hispanic
civil rights groups unfairly—and often with great success in
the media—brand supporters of secure borders and things like
border walls as xenophobic racists who don’t appreciate the
fact that illegal immigrants risk life and limb to come to
this country where they often do jobs that Americans are not
willing to do. Unfortunately for these groups, they’re
wrong, and because they’re wrong, they’re being unfair to
the real and justified concerns of people who, like me,
favor more airtight border security
But being
wrong isn’t their only problem. The claims of pro-illegal
immigrant groups also distract attention from the fact that
the policies of these groups do more harm to illegal
immigrants than any minuteman has ever done, and from the
fact that their positions are rooted not in immigrant
safety but in a desire for one of their key
constituencies—illegal immigrants living in the US—to swell
and be replenished via our insecure borders.
THE TRUTH ABOUT SUPPORTERS OF SECURE BORDERS
I first
want to discuss the unfair portrayal of those who support
more secure borders as xenophobic racists. This is simply
not true. I, for one, am an American of Mexican descent who
is the grandson of an illegal immigrant from Mexico. And
not only do I harbor no racial or ethnic animosity
whatsoever toward the land of my ancestry, but also, I don’t
blame Mexicans one bit for trying to get as far away
as possible from the corruption and poverty of Mexico, nor
for trying to enter the greatest country on the
planet—America—by any means necessary. As I’m fond of
saying, there’s a good reason why my great grandmother
decided to flee Mexico with my then two-year-old
grandfather, and there’s a good reason she chose the United
States as her ultimate destination. Unfortunately for many
Mexicans today, those good reasons remain an undeniable fact
of life.
And just
as we are not necessarily racist, we are not necessarily
xenophobic. Speaking for myself only, I have dear friends
who are either U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents from
countries ranging from Canada, Mexico and India, to even
Muslim countries like Turkey and Iran, and I would trust
any of them with my life. And even though all of these
personal acquaintances of mine both arrived and stayed in
the United States legally, I still harbor no intrinsic
hatred or fear of anyone who either arrived or stayed
illegally either. I know that U.S. immigration laws can
often be confusing and unfair, and I know that most illegal
aliens aren’t in the US to intentionally hurt a single
soul. And finally, if magically I were given the power to
make a list of people that I could have immediately deported
from the United States, almost everyone I can think of
expelling is a native-born U.S. citizen!
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT RIGHTS GROUPS DO MORE HARM TO ILLEGALS
THAN EVEN THE MINUTEMEN
Their
anti-border control rhetoric is a smokescreen cleverly
disguising the fact that pro-illegal immigrant groups are
actually doing more harm to illegal immigrants than any
minuteman ever did. Why? Because their platform—including
everything from their opposition to more strict border
controls to their support of health, education and other
social programs for illegals—lures illegals to our country
and encourages them to risk life and limb in their
treacherous journey north.
Ruthless
coyotes who make money off the misery of Mexicans
desperate to come to America, deaths and other casualties
resulting from the dangerous journey across the desert on
foot or in sealed cargo containers, billions of dollars in
uncollected taxes from the illegal drug trade, the bloody
drug war that plays itself out on Mexican streets, and a
Mexican regime not motivated to fix itself and provide the
hope of a prosperous life for its people—these are all
encouraged by the present inadequate U.S. border control
policy and its support by pro-illegal immigration groups.
However, it’s the stricter border control policies favored
by the minutemen and their kind that have the exact opposite
effect. You don’t need a PhD in border policy to see that
an open border encourages illegal immigration and all the
negative consequences that come with it, while an
impenetrable border would all but completely discourage it.
As someone
quite sympathetic to both the cause of the supporters of
stricter border security and the motivations of Latin
American illegal immigrants who just want a better life for
themselves, it’s pretty annoying to be falsely and unfairly
branded as racist and xenophobic. And it’s frankly
ridiculous that those of us who are actually supporting what
is legal and opposing what is illegal are painted out to be
the bad guys by those falsely claiming to carry the banner
of humanitarianism.
So just
why are non-racist and non-xenophobic people
like me in favor of tighter border control? In a word:
security. Security from an illegal drug trade that
leads to the importation of millions of dollars worth of
untaxed goods and that props up violent Mexican drug
cartels, security from a labor pool who while well-intended
will undercut American employees with their willingness to
work for less than what it’s legal to pay an employee in the
US, and security from terrorists intent on inflicting mass
casualties in the U.S. and who are likely to exploit our
leaky borders to sneak in and do it. That is the
truth, and that is what’s really behind support for
tighter border controls.
So when
those who make their living tilting at the nonexistent
windmills of xenophobia and racism make claims about the
supporters of secure borders, don’t automatically take them
at their word, and take what they say with a large dose of
healthy skepticism, because the fact of the matter is that
they’re often dead wrong.
POP QUIZ: LOCAL TV NEWS IS:
a) gory b) sensational c) talent-less
d) irrelevant ANSWER: e) all of the above
 Blood,
gore, sensationalistic plotlines, fear mongering, bad
writing, and crappy talent. What am I talking about? No,
not a bad, direct-to-video “B” movie starring daytime soap
rejects. No, not an amateur student film shot on a
camcorder so a couple of academic underachievers could get a
little extra credit in drama class. No, what I’m describing
is your home-grown, garden-variety, local network affiliate
television news!
Yes, at
some point in the recent past local TV news editors got the
memo that important things like press conferences with city
officials talking about things that actually affect
our lives aren’t as “eye-catching,” “telegenic,” or “sexy”
as stories about rare and isolated things that do not
affect our lives, and do little but scare the crap out of us
and…oh yeah…keep us glued to our TV as if it were a
miniature car accident in our living room because local TV
news is pretty much nothing but car accidents beamed
into our living room.
Personally, my least favorite type of lead stories are the
ones about tragic accidents that do little but give us an
irrational fear of driving, stories about isolated murders
that inspire irrational fears of home invasion, and—worst of
all—stories about ongoing court cases that while “high
profile” only because we’ve all heard of the parties
involved, truly have zero impact on your life or
mine. Yeah, I’m talking about the Michael Jackson trials of
the world and the idiot networks drawn to them like a shark
to blood in the water.
But it’s
not just stupid stories. It’s also talent that’s often
mediocre at best. Why? There are hundreds of media markets
in the country, some with four or more local TV news
establishments. And many of those all feel compelled to
have live newscasts early in the morning (which I don’t
understand), a full hour at noon (which I don’t
understand), another two hours between 4 and 6PM (an hour
and a half of which I also don’t understand), and
another half hour at 10 or 11PM (again—don’t get it). In
short, news organizations are forced to cover almost 10
hours of on-air news with a talent pool that you might
be able to decently cover an hour with. And since the “good
ones” tend to be attracted to the pay and prestige of the
bigger cities, the rest of us are stuck with the “B” and “C”
teams of television journalism…bad hair, bad delivery, bad
ties and all.
So in my
usual spirit of constructive advice to help solve today’s
problems and embarrassments, here’s my newsflash for local
news: please remember where the word “news” comes
from…“NEW”. Murders, car accidents, death, rape and
theft—while all horrible and sad—are not “new.” Unless one
of them happens with a regularity that indicates a serial or
epidemic status, or unless seeing or hearing about the story
is going to have a real (not imagined effect on our
lives), then we don’t need a live shot of a reporter
in front of a non-descript house, an accident, or any other
random crime scene every damned night telling us
about it. It’s not news, it’s a statistic, so give it to us
in a crawl at the bottom of the screen if you’re gonna give
it to us at all. Instead, as hard as it may be, tell us
stuff that actually matters to us and affects our lives, or
as some people like to call it…NEWS!
Next, once
you take out the sensationalistic fluff, shrink wrap the
day’s real news and serve it up in a 30-minute
newscast during early-evening by your best anchor. I say 30
minutes because you’re lucky if you even have that much real
news, and I say early-evening because folks who work late
can record it and watch it later. And yes, I said just
your best anchor. Spare us the politically-correct and
cliché male-female anchor “team” with token ethnic sports
and weather wingmen, and take the cash you save by trimming
the fat and hire someone attractive to look at and easy to
listen to for the anchor desk, and take the money you save
and hire good reporters to support him or her. Then,
because it’s good for a change, record it and rebroadcast it
the next morning between five and 10AM when you typically
find the third or fourth string anchors regurgitating the
previous night’s news anyway. If local news outlets did
this, the five people who actually want 10 hours of
live local news each day could visit a station’s website as
often as they want to get it, and the rest of us could
actually enjoy a decent television newscast featuring
relevant, real news.
I know, I
know…you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one…and
unlike John Lennon’s dream in the song “Imagine,” my
proposed local TV news reforms—unlike world peace—actually
have better than a snowball’s chance in Hell of actually
happening.
PRAISE ALLAH I DON’T LIVE
IN A MUSLIM COUNTRY:
Unfortunately, Jihad Momani and Hisham Khalidi do.
 Well it
just gets worse every day. As I mentioned in one of my
recent diatribes the Muslim world has reacted to the
publishing of cartoons featuring Mohammed in a way that
Christian democracies hardly ever do…even when they are
physically attacked by Muslims and their innocent civilians
are killed. In fact, while the Muslim world torches
European embassies—including the embassies of countries
not involved in the recent cartoon controversy—and makes
calls of “death to…” European countries—including countries
not involved in the recent controversy—I’m not aware
of so much as one single demonstration in the streets of a
major American city calling for “death to Afghanistan,” the
home of Al Qaida, nor death to any other Muslim nation, much
less the torching of any Muslim country’s embassy in
Washington, DC, in the wake of 9-11.
And yes,
while America did indeed topple the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan in response to 9-11, can anyone really say that
the murder of 3,000 innocents was not an adequate
justification for retaliation? But on the other hand, only
Muslims seem to argue that cartoons—CAR-FREAKIN-TOONS—are
adequate provocation for acts of violence against even
countries unrelated to the controversy. In a situation like
this, it really makes you wish that Muhammad wrote the
phrase “sticks and stones may break my bones but cartoons
will never hurt me” into a passage in the Quran. It sure
would have saved a lot of Iranian Molotov Cocktails.
But just
when I was about to completely lose my faith in the Muslim
world’s ability to take the insulting cartoons with a grain
of salt, I was pleasantly surprised and impressed by
the courage and enlightenment of two Jordanian Muslim men,
Jihad Momani and Hisham Khalidi. Momani and Khalidi were
(yes, were) editors of Jordanian newspapers who had
the intestinal fortitude to republish the pictures because
they knew that without an ability to view the comics for
themselves, readers would have to rely on the word of
government officials about their offensive nature. This
reliance on a few rulers to make decisions on the part of
the many is the antithesis of democracy, and it is at the
heart of almost every claim to power throughout the
dictatorial and undemocratic Muslim world. But as men who
have faith in the ability of individuals to make up their
own minds rather than needing beliefs and opinions to be
spoon-fed to them by dictators, ayatollahs, or caliphs, they
very democratically republished the cartoons for their
readers to view and form opinions about on their own.
And my
respect for Mr. Momani doesn’t stop there. In addition to
republishing the cartoons, his paper also ran an editorial
which bravely said, "Muslims of
the world be reasonable," and wisely posed the rhetorical
question "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these
caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the
throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide
bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in
Amman?"
That’s the
good news. But here’s the bad news. For their brave,
nonviolent act and for their faith in the ability of their
readers to decide for themselves and consider an opinion
unpopular in the Islamic world, these heroes of freedom and
symbols of moderation in Islam were not just fired, but
jailed by the Kingdom of Jordan…one of the most moderate
and pro-American regimes in the Arab and Muslim world whose
king is an American-educated Georgetown University Alum and
who, along with his wife, is a fluent English speaker.
Charged with “defaming prophets in public,” Jihad Momani and
Hisham Khalidi, if convicted, they could serve up to three
years in prison, and the moderate king has promised “no
leniency” in their prosecution. And finally, the Jordan
Press Association, which you might expect to defend
the actions of these men, has actually referred the men to a
disciplinary committee saying “they have done something
wrong and they must be punished.” How’s that for free press,
ALCU?!
It’s the
treatment of brave men like these in what is typically
considered to be a moderate Muslim nation with a
pro-America, pro-reform regime that should cause us to be
quite concerned about everything from the democratization of
the Muslim world to the security and reliability of our
supply of foreign oil. I mean think about it: if a cartoon
is reason enough to recall ambassadors (see
previous article here), cease all trade with an entire
country and firebomb embassies, then just imagine what other
kinds of nonviolent missteps by private citizens
could lead Muslim countries to decide to just turn off our
oil supply. And it’s one of the reasons why we should both
continue to coax the Muslim world gently towards democracy
and freedom on the one hand, while exercising caution and
cutting our dependence on goods and service—especially
oil—from the politically volatile Muslim world on the other.
Like the
Bible and the Torah, the Quran is a rather long book filled
with stories and lessons about God and how God wants his
human followers to act. But while the New Testament of the
Bible has frequent peaceful teachings like reminders to love
our enemies, to forgive those who have trespassed against
us, to not to judge others, and to turn the other cheek, the
Quran seems to lack any such teaching or to even possess a
passage that when liberally interpreted might actually be
read to mean “chill out on folks who make you mad. Because
remember…I’m God…I’ve got pretty thick skin, OK?” It’s too
bad the Quran doesn’t have such a passage—both on an
individual and on an international level—and it’s one of the
reasons I’m glad I don’t live in a Muslim country.
SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS:
Threat to liberty, or weapon against crime?
 I think
anyone who, like me, has spent a lot of time in Vegas—either
visiting or living there as I once did—has become oblivious
to the fact that their every move in public is being
photographed and/or videotaped, and similarly, they’ve come
to realize that the ACLU and other left wingers are
over-hyping the whole “threat to privacy” that they believe
widespread use of surveillance cameras pose to society. But
for those of you out there who haven’t had the pleasure of
spending a lot of time in Vegas or another well-scanned
city, and who are, like me, quite mindful of our civil
liberties and have had their eyebrows raised by ACLU claims
that cameras pose a threat to freedom and democracy as we
know it, let me make two very important points.
POINT
NUMBER ONE: what you do in public is just that…PUBLIC.
There’s a reason why the word privacy exists, and that’s to
describe the realm in which you do and say things when
you’re not in public. There is no bigger civil
libertarian than I, and anyone who reads my daily diatribes
on this site knows that. Whether it’s a person’s right to
marry who they want or to smoke what they want when in
private and as long as any negative effects remain
with you in private, I think people’s freedoms should be
as broad as possible, and that the realm of the private
should always be free and protected.
However,
most of the people who masquerade as “civil libertarians”
like the ACLU, for example, wrongly define the sphere of the
private as including a good chunk of the public domain or
other people’s private domains. Whether it’s a public
street, in a public place, on the premises of
another person’s private property on which their
rules apply and not yours, or whether it’s your e-mail
correspondence on computers at work that you don’t
own and therefore aren’t private, we’re always being
told by ACLU types that we’re entitled to privacy in those
areas.
But they
couldn’t be farther from the truth. The fact is that
anytime you’re in public, you’re in public.
And a camera watching over a city street isn’t seeing
anything that another person who could legally be standing
outside watching you (or watching you from inside their home
or apartment for that matter) couldn’t also legally
see. And for that reason, the notion of suing the
government over placing cameras to monitor public places is
just as ridiculous as suing another citizen for being in the
same public place and watching you. And it’s the same when
you’re on another person’s private property—whether
it’s a public store or a private home. If they want to tape
you, then it’s their right to do so—including, frankly, in
my opinion, whether you know it or not!
Because of
their completely wrong definition of the private, civil
liberties imposters like the ACLU are more like
“pseudo-libertarians” than “civil” libertarians, and
counterfeit civil libertarians and their overly-broad
definitions of the private sphere do nothing but give real
civil libertarians like me a bad name. If you are in a
public place or on another person’s private property, claims
of “personal space,” “civil liberties,” and “privacy” simply
have no place in the discussion.
POINT
NUMBER TWO: cameras work. As Chicago’s Mayor Daley said
when he recently announced that Chicago businesses would be
required to install cameras, “Cameras really prevent much
crime. Cameras also solve a lot of crime. The terrorist
attacks in London were solved by cameras. The whole incident
was solved by cameras." And let’s not forget about the
criminals in Florida who were recently caught after a
portion of their attacks in which they beat and killed
homeless men were captured on camera. And in still another
example, in Wilmington Delaware, cameras have helped in 95
cases over the past six months alone. Of course these
examples are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to
the massive numbers of crimes that were solved because of
surveillance camera footage. But as big as that number is,
it probably still pales in comparison to the number of
crimes that never happened in the first place because
cameras helped prevent them from happening.
The bottom
line is this. There are plenty of places in the world and
even here in America where cameras are already everywhere,
and if there were really any horrible consequences of
widespread surveillance camera use, we would have heard
about them by now—because the pseudo-libertarians would have
made sure we heard about it. So the fact that all we ever
hear when these measures are debated and discussed is
chicken-little fear-mongering should tell us that the people
suggesting broader use of surveillance cameras in public are
probably right, and that we have nothing to fear but the
criminals who will be all too happy to continue doing their
mischief knowing it’ll never be captured on film.
PAINT, DRAW, OR SKETCH ISLAM’S
MUHAMMAD AT YOUR OWN RISK: Jesus is OK, though.
 One of the
most beautiful things about living in a western, Christian
democracy is that I can post a humorous depiction of
Jesus—the most important person in world history to
Christians everywhere—on my site and not really have to
worry that Christians will try to kill me or that Christian
nations will recall their ambassadors from the United States
because of what I did. But apparently the same can not be
said of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad.
I’m not
sure if you’ve heard about it yet but a cartoon in Denmark
depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in
the shape of a bomb with a burning fuse has caused so much
international turmoil that you would have thought an Arab
country had actually been physically attacked or
economically sanctioned by the west. But no, the mere
publishing of a cartoon in a Danish newspaper
(not even a newspaper in America—the great Satan, or in
Israel—the little Satan) has ignited a diplomatic and
literal firestorm in the Islamic world. Sure the usual
suspects voiced their anger: Palestinians added Danish flags
to the American ones they burn daily, and the terrorists/new
leaders of Palestinian territories, Hamas, called for a
worldwide boycott of Danish products. But on a much larger
level Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have boycotted all Danish
products, Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark,
its Islamic Affairs ministry called it “cultural terrorism,”
Libya has closed its Danish embassy, the ambassadors of
eleven Muslim countries to Denmark demanded apologies from
the publisher, and of course, the peace-loving government of
Syria called for the publishers to be punished.
Now as
always let me get my disclaimers out of the way right off
the bat before I tell you my take on the situation. First
of all I’m a big fan of satire—including political
and religious satire—and I think that mature people and
mature political and spiritual leaders should keep a stiff
upper lip when they confront insults to themselves
personally as well as to important people, gods and
historical figures in the groups they represent. I don’t
necessarily like all of it, and I even think it
can be in poor taste at times. But one of the unique,
and in my opinion, beautiful characteristics of modern
democracies is our ability to legally poke fun at
ourselves—even our most important religious and political
figures—such as on Saturday Night Live where countless
American presidents as well as Jesus Christ himself have
been lampooned. And it didn’t start there; political
cartoons making fun of political and religious
leaders—sometimes quite rude and crude—have been a part of
America since its founding, and we seem to have done pretty
well for ourselves in spite of it.
Not
so
in the Muslim streets of almost every single Muslim country
where American flag burnings, George W. Bush effigy
burnings, and chants of “death to America” are an almost
daily occurrence if not a national pastime. Even worse,
some governments of Islamic states have both publicly and
privately supported actual plans to destabilize our
government and other western democracies by killing as many
of our innocent civilians as possible, refused to recognize
the | 
bullypulpitonline.com
