Well said. I wonder if they realize just how much they have lost our respect for not saying it.

Wapo didnt publish the cartoons. They DID publish on Sunday, on the front page of the outlook section, a column by Flemming Rose of the Jyllands Posten, about WHY he published the cartoons, and what it means. I was quite pleased with WaPo for doing that. I really dont need for them to publish the cartoons.

How about not publishing the cartoons because the cartoons themselves aren't really newsworthy.

It's the reaction to them that is not newsworthy.

Hawk has the right idea here.

Perhaps they don't publish the cartoons because they aren't newsworthy?

Cover the reaction to the cartoons for sure, but what is news about the cartoons themselves?

And frankly, I think the motives you attribute to them for not publishing the cartoons are baseless and, quite frankly, more than a bit silly. And apparantly partially attributed through projection.

Sorry for the double post. Thought one had failed.

My former employer, the Illini Media Company, suspended the editor-in-chief and opinions editor of the Daily Illini for publishing the cartoons.

Two reasons have been given. The publisher says that the staff became angry that they (the lower-level employees) had not been consulted. Those suspended tell a different story:

The publication of the cartoons in the The Daily Illini has incensed the Muslim community on campus and struck fear in newsroom staff, Gorton said.

“Monday night we had a meeting and I addressed the staff. People were telling me why didn’t I consider their safety, and what if the newsroom was fire bombed,” Gorton said. “I couldn’t believe it. We’re Americans, we don’t do those kind of things here.”

Since neither the publisher, nor the paper, can point to an actual procedure that was violated and admit that the EIC has the final word on content, fear was clearly the reason for their suspension.

Gorton predicts that he will be fired and has retained a Muslim attorney to represent him against the newspaper.

You keep on saying it, It's time that people wake up and smell the coffee.

How is the reaction to cartoons newsworthy, but the underlying cause is somehow not? Why should we trust someone saying "Muslims got angry over innocuous cartoons", if we don't see those cartoons are innocuous for ourselves? For all we know (and by "we" I mean John Q. American who hasn't been following every detail over the Internet), those could be the most inflammatory depictions in the history of modern art, and there might be justification for the aggravated response.

If the cartoons were already widely known, perhaps you'd have a point. For example, now that the world has seen the Abu Ghraib pictures a million times over, it might be time for to stop showing as them filler background footage whenever Rumsfeld gets a mention on the evening news. But the MSM, by and large, had not broken this story in the American press; and while starting a story in medias res might be fine for a novel, it makes for horrible journalism.

"Cover the reaction to the cartoons for sure, but what is news about the cartoons themselves?"

Yeh. That doesnt make a lick of sense. 'Superbowl XL- jubulation in Pittsburgh, riots in Seattle, we arent going to tell you why but lets go to our traffic-copter over the burning streets of Seattle'.

That, and I will bet folding money that a poll of people who get their news from the MSM would find most of them think the cartoons were far harsher than they actually were. The absence of information fuels speculation, and how many people would guess that the most pointed of the cartoons are no more severe than political cartoons that appear in American newspapers every day? (Less, some of them. None of the Danish cartoons approach the "Condi Rice as Prissy" or "Sharon as baby-eater" level. And those were published in respectable news outlets.)

As it is, most people I've talked to think the cartoons were obscenely insulting. They haven't seen them and don't know what's in them; they've gotten this impression from what they've read, from the wildness of the reaction, and from the very fact that the cartoons haven't been printed. If they're not fit for a family newspaper and CNN pixelated them, they must be obscene, mustn't they? The refusal to print them distorts people's view of the reaction to them.

Is this really because of cowardice? Or are they accommodating Muslim rage because they think it hurts Bush?

They certainly don't feel any obligation to defend free speech from naked street fascism. They can stand pat with "It's an insult to say we don't support free speech, because we're liberals and we stand for all good things by definition. It's the Republicans who want to destroy free speech, etc. etc. etc."

Im not saying the cartoons arent at all newsworthy. I can certainly respect the decision of the Philly Inquirer to publish them, cause they are newsworthy. Just as I respect the decision of Jyllands Posten to publish them in the first place. (you really outta read the Rose piece, it makes a good case, i think) Im just saying that papers have the right to NOT publish, for whatever reasons they choose.

And i would suggest that respect for religion and fear of violence does NOT exhaust the possible motivations. In the case of the Washington Post, owned by a family of partial Jewish descent, with a strongly pro-Israel and liberal hawkish editorial page, I suspect they feel its strategically wise, both from their papers pov, and for the WOT more generally, that THEY in particular not publish the cartoons. The NYT for related reasons may feel in a similar position (though their approach to the WOT has been rather different from the Wapo's)

I might add this is one reason I had some reluctance about supporting Joe Leiberman in 2004 (though it proved academic, as things turned out) The fear (and I say this as a Jew) that a Jewish president would be placed in a particulary difficult position by the need to take aggressive actions during the WOT.

For those who don't think the cartoons were newsworthy, have you seen them? liberalhawk and Davebo, I bet you have. By not publishing them, its almost a tacit admission that anybody intertested in the story has to go to the internet for the rest of the story. That doesn't bode well for print media.

Hugh Hewitt (cache) interviewed the suspended EIC of the D.I.:

HH: And do you sense from the reporters in the media that you're talking to sympathy?

AG: I do. I mean, I think a lot of the journalists and the reporters [d]o sympathize with my decision to run this. And in fact, most of them tell me off the record, and quite candidly, that they wanted to run the cartoons themselves, but their editors or their news directors would not allow them to do that.

It is funny to see conservatives suddenly become defenders of free speech. Welcome, however late, to the party.

I am sure you will all abandon your new found principles however as soon as the subject is no longer insulting to muslims but becomes something like flag burning.

Sorry, Liberalhawk, I pressed send before seeing that you already essentially addressed my question.

Certainly they have the right not to publish them, but that doesn't make it the correct choice. And if an ostensibly journalistic organization exercises that right, it opens them up for exactly the kind of criticism Cicero makes. Just like, to pick an inflammatory example, the National Organization of Women has the right not to condemn Islamic honor killings in Europe; no one's forcing either organization to speak on any subject, but their selective silences speaks volumes about the credibility and true principles of those organizations.

I'd argue that politicians, on the other hand, are held to a different standard. The simple act of being a head of state mandates a response to certain world events, creating a uniquely difficult position where accusations of conflicts, real and imagined, can be flung around. As you pointed out, having Lieberman as President is not an inherently bad thing, but it might cause nutcases on the other side of the world to dismiss the US out of hand. How far should we take this principle? Should all oilmen be barred from holding office, because of the hassle Bush/Cheney have been given about Big Oil? What about all former businessmen? Former union members? Former lawyers? (Actually, I bet a survey asking "should we ban all lawyers from Washington DC" would find high support for the proposition...)

Perhaps it's an unfair standard, but when we apply this question to NGOs, special interest groups, politicians, and journalists, it's generally the last category--journalists--who we expect to give us the entire story, not just the bits crafted to suit their own interests.

Its fear, but less fear of pipe bombs and more fear of CAIR badmouthing them on CNN.

Dang. We go through the trouble of typing our thoughts out... then Cox & Forkum go and say it all with a single cartoon.

The Media NEEDS to publish the cartoons so people can judge for themselves.

I've seen them. They are quite innocuous and the reaction to these very inoffensive cartoons is telling.

The media is gutless, "speaking truth to power" by bashing easy targets like Cheney (no one liked him anyway) or Bush. Not risking beheading or being blown up when insanely fanatical terrorists order them not to do a thing.

We can see that the media takes its orders from the Muslim mob.

The liberal intelligentsia is just as guilty of fear, intimidation, and let's be honest PC multi-culti that makes the accusations of every hard-core conservative proven by fact.

"Perhaps they don't publish the cartoons because they aren't newsworthy?

Cover the reaction to the cartoons for sure, but what is news about the cartoons themselves?"

Davebo -- the accusation of "Folk Marxism" by Taranto stands proven by this sentiment. I have heard similar statements by others (less you think I am singling you out) of a liberal persuasion. NYT published, in reaction to the Cartoon Jihad, "Cow Dung Madonna" which IMHO proves Taranto's thesis that Liberalism has degenerated into "oppressed" vs. "oppressor" caste systems with Liberals seeking moral superiority and status by navigating their actions based on some solidarity with the "oppressed" group over the "oppressors." At it's extreme you get Red Ken calling Jewish Reporters Nazi Concentration Camp guards (in solidarity with anti-semitic Muslims who are "oppressed.") This is dangerous for Liberalism and for the nation in my view. Conservatism NEEDS the check of a robust classical Liberalism and vice-versa so that neither go off the deep end.

It was out of this concern over the debasement of the Press and Lockean Classic Liberal values that Dershowitz co-authored with Bill Bennett that editorial denouncing the Media's failure to perform their duty by publishing the cartoons. Having seen all 12 (and the phony three cartoons ginned up by Danish Muslims) I can say that Cartoon Jihad DOES reflect on a clash of civilizations. Muslims will use violence and intimidation to impose Sharia on the entire world unless pushed back. The cartoons are innocuous and nothing to get excited about. They make the point over which the cartoons were commissioned in the first place --

Muslims are using fear and terrorism to control what Westerners do, say, and think.

When Dershowitz and Bennett co-operate I think there is ample evidence of a huge problem.

Ken -- people burning the Flag world-wide (and in this country) are generally Muslims. This only exacerbates the Toby Keith approach to foreign policy.

One media outlet did say it.

Jeff Jacoby found one Boston newspaper honest enough to admit that its motive in not running the cartoons is shameful fear of Islamist retaliation:

"Our primary reason," the editors confessed, is "fear of retaliation from ... bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do...Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and...could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year-publishing history."

Kudos for honesty across the board - but yes, it is the darkest moment. Read the rest and find the links at Bidonotto blog.

"Certainly they have the right not to publish them, but that doesn't make it the correct choice. And if an ostensibly journalistic organization exercises that right, it opens them up for exactly the kind of criticism Cicero makes. Just like, to pick an inflammatory example, the National Organization of Women has the right not to condemn Islamic honor killings in Europe; no one's forcing either organization to speak on any subject, but their selective silences speaks volumes about the credibility and true principles of those organizations."

But the Washington Post has NOT been silent on the topic. What could be more eloquent than putting Flemming Rose on the front page of their sunday opinion section? Id say that did far more to make the case for free speech, than actually printing the drawing of a bearded face with a bomb on its head. And they may well have believed that doing the latter would have detracted from the impact of the former.

"And they may well have believed that doing the latter would have detracted from the impact of the former. "

Roll Eyes. How come nobody made this argument about the Abu Ghraib pictures then? The media will print anything that sells unless they have a larger reason to do so. And fear is a larger reason. Again- i think its less physical fear than fear of being labeled racist/culturally insensistive.

Whew! Thank goodness somebody here at Winds of Change is brave enough to keep on bashing the media over a weeks-old cartoon controversy, rather than offering any kind of commentary on boring, mundane stuff like the potential meltdown of a multi-ethnic Iraqi democracy.

Seriously, guys. Yes, the cartoon situation is sympotmatic of far larger problems, but right now the solution y'all have pushed to solve those problems is in dire straits, and nobody here seems to be paying much attention to that fact. For a strongly pro-war blog like Winds of Change to be all but mute on the current Iraq situation speaks, to me at least, of a credibility problem far greater than anything you've tried to pin on the media.

Jim I am hoping you want to take this bit back:
"Ken -- people burning the Flag world-wide (and in this country) are generally Muslims. This only exacerbates the Toby Keith approach to foreign policy."
Because I am sure Ken realizes our laws dont extend beyond our borders and that your contention that Muslims are the one burning it here is just a silly comment- I always thought it was the hippies and feminists ;)
Would love to hear you address his comment regarding people cherry picking on issues of free speach though.
Grey is sometimes the hardest color to see.
Otherwise, good posts- lots to think about over the weekend. Have a good one all.

"Fear is not respect. Fear is fear. So just say it."

Yea.. Fear's the reason everyone didn't flush Korans after that debocle, too. Fear. Yea, right.

For a strongly pro-war blog like Winds of Change to be all but mute on the current Iraq situation speaks, to me at least, of a credibility problem far greater than anything you've tried to pin on the media.

To be fair, Chris, they're silent on the handover of operations at 21 ports to a company based in Dubai, too.

I'd dearly love to hear a new, improved Panglossian explanation for how things are going swell. Fox News at least had the stones to debate whether or not civil war in Iraq was an improvement (!), so we know mindless shills are capable of discussing events.

To be fair, Chris, they're silent on the handover of operations at 21 ports to a company based in Dubai, too.

Not exactly silent.

The jury remains somewhat divided on that issue. I'll note with approval the latest piece I read on that issue... come to think of it, no, I won't, not here on this thread. I'll do it on the UAE thread where it belongs.

As for the mosque bombing you would be mistaken to assume that it is not being followed. And that's all I'll say here.

Winds isn't pro-war; it's anti-fear. Which side are you on?

I'd dearly love to hear a new, improved Panglossian explanation for how things are going swell.

OK:

Look, the place could descend into civil war, but it's worth keeping the following facts in mind. As of a few minutes ago, the New York Times is reporting 138 people killed out of a population of 23 million. It's not a civil war yet. In fact, I'm kind of surprised it's not a lot worse, given what happened. Given that this is such a major symbol, I would have predicted you would have had like 500 killed by this point. . . .

We had 250,000 people killed in sectarian violence in the former Yugoslavia. And you had intellectuals throughout the United States claiming it was not a civil war, it was just bad people and it was only cynics calling it a civil war. You've had people calling this a civil war from a year ago, when you had like ten people killed a day, out of a population of a country the same size as Yugoslavia. Will it descend into civil war? Possible. Who knows? You know, it's in the balance. But you know, it's worth keeping things in perspective, is all I can say.

Robert Kaplan

You're wrong. So were these guys in the Washington Post. See: Bullfeathers :
bq. Contrary to Bennett and Dershowitz, the cartoons did not have to be published. The right to publish the cartoons was at issue, not the necessity. Trust Bennett, who professes virtue, but does not understand it, and Dershowitz, who professes liberalism, but does not understand it, to join forces to misrepresent evil, and what constitutes capitulation to it.

Thought one had failed.

Thought two failed also. Look, how the heck are people to judge what the furor is about if they can't see the cartoons and judge for themselves if they are offensive? It is not supposed to be the job of the newpapers to censor that sort of news, but they do so anyway. The sensitive bit is really a stretch. I don't think it is mostly fear either, I think they have chosen sides.

ken: "I am sure you will all abandon your new found principles however as soon as the subject is no longer insulting to muslims but becomes something like flag burning."

Yeah, right. Remind me again, Ken: The last time we discussed flag burning in this country, exactly how many ACLU lawyers got killed in the ensuing riots?

Your attitude, incidentally, is precisely what I was talking about. There is a certain type of liberal who believes that he has a monopoly on all civic virtue, which he has no obligation to prove to anybody.

Winds isn't pro-war; it's anti-fear. Which side are you on?

Well, PD Shaw, I'm on the side that thinks Wilsonian fantasies should have died in 1919. I'm on the side that pointed out in 2003 that invading Iraq was unjustified by circumstance or international law and would distract from the ongoing effort to find and punish Osama bin Laden. I'm on the side that voted for G.W. Bush in 2000 because he "didn't believe in nation-building." I'm on the side that thought Iraq was a Yugoslavia held together (barely) by the iron fist of a (secular) thug, and that sending American troops into the Mesopotamian tar pit would be a blunder worse than Vietnam, with far greater geopolitical risks if the mission failed.

Look, the place could descend into civil war, but it's worth keeping the following facts in mind. As of a few minutes ago, the New York Times is reporting 138 people killed out of a population of 23 million. It's not a civil war yet. In fact, I'm kind of surprised it's not a lot worse,

138 X 365 = 50,370.

Population of USA in 1860 = 31,000,000

Combined combat deaths, Civil War = 185,000
Divided by 4 (1861-1865) = 46,250 per year

Population of Iraq in 2006 = 23,000,000
Adj. deaths (pop 23mil, not 31mil) = 34,314 per year

... so if the Iraqis just experience the death rate of the US Civil War, they can expect fewer deaths, per day, than they suffered earlier this week. Swell!

#33 -

Actually the annual toll for the Civil War was more than 150,000 from all causes.

If they stay below that, they'll lose about half the number of people that Saddamn Hussein killed in 1991.

If they stay below your number (combat deaths only) they'll lose about half as many as Saddam killed in 1987 and 1988.

They'd have to lose 400,000 total to top the number of Iraqis who died of malnutrition in the last five years of Saddam's "stable" regime.

138, incidentally, is about the same as the number of Iraqi women who were beheaded in 2000. Not all in one day, though, as I'm sure you'd be quick to point out.

Actually Glen it is refreshing to see conservatives finally evolve into defenders of free speech. My point is that you are late to the party and that the object of your defense, an insult to Islam, doesn't take much courage as you do not like Islam anyway.

If you really believe in defending free speech you would defend those who burn flags, a position that does require a great deal of courange.

Please note that I am not saying you are wrong to defend free speech. I just wish conservatives would be supportive of the principle whenever it really matters, that's all.

ken;

Here's another example to use. I'd be curious to see how Republicans and conservatives and people on sites like this would respond to efforts to broadcast the following show by Richard Dawkins on American TV networks. I, for one, would love to see it shown here, for exactly the same reasons as many raise in this thread to support why US papers should publish the controversial cartoons; but doubt it could be, since people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have such a disproportionately strong voice in the public square.

However, thanks to the internet, you can download the episodes without fear of the thought police/American Taliban coming after you.

Richard Dawkins Evolves Into an Irascible TV Host.

"Earlier this month, Britain's Channel 4 aired The Root of All Evil?, a two-part exploration of religious faith hosted and narrated by Richard Dawkins, the eminent Oxford ethologist and author who is one of the world's most outspoken proponents of the theory of evolution. He's also an aggressive critic of religion. The Root of All Evil? follows Dawkins as he travels to some of the world's religious centers—among them Jerusalem, Lourdes, and Colorado Springs—to observe services and to interview leaders and followers of various faiths.

From the vantage point of the United States, the program is remarkable: You simply would never encounter such a brazen denunciation of religious faith on this country's airwaves, because the outcry from the religious right would be deafening. Dawkins's narration drips with contempt; as he goes about his rounds, it's as if he can hardly restrain himself from shouting, "I'm surrounded by IDIOTS!" The smoke coming out of his ears leaves a trail behind him wherever he goes."

Wizener,

It could be that you are splitting hairs. I'm not a conservative but I think there's plenty of equilibrium between left and right in this country with respect to censorship and message massaging. You're right to point out that Dawkins' piece is inherently hard to broadcast on the airwaves for fear of offending Christians. But this sort of thing is hardly limited to one side of the political spectrum.

Try having a real debate over issues like the tenets of neo-conservatism, the Iraq war, Israel, the UN's corruption or affirmative action on a college campus. I assure you, there'll be little of anything that resembles genuine debate. Instead, there would be catcalls made at anyone proposing that some of Bush's policies have their merits, and might be debatable as merits. And the catcalls would be from staff and students alike.

Or the MSM's near-total censorship of what's going on in Northern Iraq right now. Lots of good news there. But not for our ears. Or any real reportage that the IAEA is leading the effort to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, and not really succeeding.

My point is that there is no shortage of holy cows on both sides of the political spectrum. I really don't buy into the notion that one political persuasion is any less adept at controlling its spotlight than the other is. They're both masters at controlling the spotlight. Most of the news is about their fight over the spotlight's handles, so they can shine it on the issues they want us to see.

Outside of America and in Europe, the level of actual debate seems even more devolutionary. Any real discussion over the practical usefulness of the UN, the debatable wisdom of political multiculturalism in a world of rising Islamic militancy, or the long-term viability of Eurosocialist nanny states is very muted. Almost undiscussable. Just like aetheism is in America.

So which political orthodxy has a monopoly on railroading the truth?

The examples you raise only serve to muddy rather than clarify the issue.

"Try having a real debate over issues like the tenets of neo-conservatism, the Iraq war, Israel, the UN's corruption or affirmative action on a college campus. I assure you, there'll be little of anything that resembles genuine debate. Instead, there would be catcalls made at anyone proposing that some of Bush's policies have their merits, and might be debatable as merits. And the catcalls would be from staff and students alike."

"Or the MSM's near-total censorship of what's going on in Northern Iraq right now."

Neither catcalls nor omissions are censorship, so I'm not sure what purpose these examples serve.

It certainly is NOT splitting hairs to raise concerns about one of the most, if not the most, pervasive and powerful sources of information suppression that exists in America. Your attempt to view this as simply another facet of the more general suggestion that every "political orthodoxy" has it's own bias and desire to "control its message" suggests to me you accept this.

The "Truth" is that evolution, not creationism, best explains how mankind arose. My point is that even this seemingly self-evident truth would be difficult, if not impossible, to broadcast over American airwaves right now. And THAT is a major, major concern, much greater than newspapers choosing to publish some silly cartoon or not. Because it calls into question the fundamental rationality of the discourse in America.

Wizener,

The fact that we're here, presumably both in America, having this exchange frames your concern over the "fundamental rationality" of discourse in America.

I think the channels of discourse are evolving. I don't know that discourse was ever all that viable with the MSM to begin with.

"Neither catcalls nor omissions are censorship, so I'm not sure what purpose these examples serve."

Hmmm. Shouting down the opposition isn't censorship? OK Dude, you win.

As to writing off the cartoons as merely "silly", then I guess the whole hubbub that came out of it is silly too. I would agree, accept that the Cartoon Affair it is one of the defining events of the divide between civilizations right now. It has nicely unearthed the divide that is glossed over too often. So I'm less quick to write it off as merely silly.

I share your concerns about fundamentalism and Creationism, but probably to less of a degree than yourself. I am happy that people like you are fighting that battle -- there's certainly no shortage of battles when it comes to keeping things rational. It hasn't escaped my notice that as we have entered the trillion-channel universe, rationality is harder to pin down. I'm not entirely sure why.

So we agree that the media shouldn’t fear the truth when pressured by forces that are threatened by it. But I’m almost certain that the fear of terrorists attacking media buildings in reprisal to publishing a cartoon is taken much less seriously than the threats made by fundamentalists to corporate profits. That is a much more palpable, immediate, and quantifiable threat, and is sure to motivate their actions to a much greater degree than terrorist attacks.

So I guess I disagree with your premise that fear of personal safety is the media’s motivating factor here. Seems unlikely. In my view, therefore, that makes your following statement very shaky:

“It's because you really do believe there is a war of civilizations, though you won't say it, and any false move could ignite the seas.”

Is that the point you are trying to make? Because here I would suggest you view the Dawkins videos, which make the argument (not uniquely his but nicely illustrated) that the "war of civilizations" is more a war of intolerance originating, at it's core, from competing "religious faiths". Based on this viewpoint, which I share, I believe that fighting fundamentalism here in America is just as important as fighting it elsewhere. Hence my post.

From the tone of your comments, I sense that you would not necessarily disagree with this.

I believe that fighting fundamentalism here in America is just as important as fighting it elsewhere. Hence my post.

From the tone of your comments, I sense that you would not necessarily disagree with this.

I don't disagree at all. There are many battles to fight, not a single one. We don't have the luxury to pick and choose our battles, if they are foisted upon us.

As I said, it's good that you are concentrating on the fundamentalists at home. I'm more concerned about the fundamentalists abroad. We needn't pick and choose between them when there's no option to.

Then how does complaining about the US media not publishing a cartoon fight fundamentalism abroad, exactly? Seems like a trivial domestic issue to me that has little bearing on what radical Islamists are doing in their own countries to inflame the passions of their followers against the secular West.

I say trivial because the cartoons do not make a substantive contribution toward advancing the debate on the issue, rather they are meant only as "entertainment" . Publishing them would therefore only serve the purpose of inflaming the issue, and what's the point of that? I would agree with the points you are making if instead of a cartoon, factual news items were being suppressed out of fear or otherwise.

Confrontation for the sake of confrontation serves no useful purpose in this or any struggle. Furthermore, news organizations should not be in the business of fighting a war.

Davebo's double post, above, is precisely correct in this regard, IMO, while his opponents fail to recognize the points I've made above.

And anyhow, do you really think you can fight fundamentalism abroad from behind your keyboard, Cicero?

I think your point has been made, in spades, and is clear.

And anyhow, do you really think you can fight fundamentalism abroad from behind your keyboard, Cicero?

Yours is a presumptious statement, made from behind a keyboard. You know nothing about me. You know nothing about the battles I fight, where I fight them, or how I fight them.

On that note, it's time to get outside and live this weekend.

I don't think it's presumptuous at all, since that is the manner in which you have apparently chosen to fight it here. If you are making other efforts, good for you as well.

But go and enjoy your weekend. And should you encounter any fundamentalists preaching hatred in your travels, please smite them down for us all in the name of Reason and Truth!

Fear? Oh come on. Is there no room at all in your world for discretion? If these cartoons involved something that you found offensive (say a racial caricature) that actually brought someone to threaten violence, we'd certainly condemn the threatener, but we wouldn't be calling for the offensive picture to be republished over and over again.

As far as I can tell, most readers here are offended that (many) Muslims find the cartoons offensive. How dare they be offended by something that doesn't bother me!

Please remember that the huge majority of Muslims in the West may find the cartoons extremely offensive but would never dream of a violent reaction. Why should a newspapers offend them again and again, in order to build up the position of those making political hay with the cartoons? (Or are people here deluded enough to think that the organizers of these riots aren't delighted with the publishing of the cartoons and fervently hoping for the magazines to be republishing them everywhere.)

I suspect it's intelligence rather than fear that prevents republication all over the map.

And just to anticipate: How would life be improved if lots more people saw the cartoons, felt they were inoffensive, and concluded that Muslims were simply too alien to understand for taking offense?

#38 "Because it calls into question the fundamental rationality of the discourse in America."

That comment was just too funny to ignore. Since when has American discourse ever been rational? For that matter, when has any political discourse ever been rational. I've been watching and participating for many years now, and most of the time it sounds like a dysfunctional family fight on a Saturday night after payday. (grin)

Sure. We use reason and logic to defend our points, and hopefully in the end these virtues will prevail, but rational discourse?

You're kinda new to this blogging stuff, huh?