I've been watching and reading the news about the shooting in France last week, to put it mildly. As anyone knows who owns a TV or a computer, there's been an incredible overload of coverage on all the news sources, one not seen since 9/11. The first person I saw who said anything even the least bit against-the-current was Southern Beale in her wonderful post, "I’m Not Charlie, or, Why Does Everyone Have To Be So Mean?" As was well described in her post, I find it odd that "I am Charlie" has become such an international movement. What Charlie Hebdo does with its comics is puerile foolishness which I don't find the least bit funny and to which I certainly would not want to align myself.
In addition, most of the legions of "I am Charlie" followers probably fail to see the disgusting hypocrisy. A pen or pencil has become the symbol of the freedom-of-the-press movement, but just try to print something anti-Semitic. Incredibly, Charlie Hebdo itself disallows it. What kind of freedom of the press is that?
Fox News has been slamming the president for not attending the rally to which so many heads-of-state rushed to be seen. And the coverage they received seems to have made it all worth it. The solidarity was unanimous. Everyone agrees freedom of speech and non-violence are good. But in many of those very same countries it's illegal to deny the Holocaust. In Angela Merkel's Fatherland it's illegal to display a swastika.
What hypocrites. They should be ashamed of themselves. I'm sure President Obama had his reasons for not attending, but to not appear among that confederacy of hypocrites is certainly nothing to fault him over. God knows there's plenty to complain about where our president's concerned - drone strikes against unarmed targets, indefinite detention for so-called terrorists, widespread warrant-less wiretapping, not to mention the continuing existing of our off-shore penal colony, Guantanamo, but not showing up for a ridiculous rally in Paris is not one of them.
Perhaps the biggest problem with all this, which seems to have gone completely unnoticed, is that the Charlie Hebdo shooting, as horrible and terrifying as it was, resulted in 12 deaths. We frequently have shootings in the US with death tolls close to that or greater even. The results: no international Twitter campaigns, no rallies of heads of state, no non-stop coverage of the news media, no nothin'.
This leaves me to wonder what's it all about then. Why such a phenomenal world-wide turnout? Well, my guess is it's all about scapegoating radical Islam. It, radical Islam and Islam in general, has become the boogie man that we can all look to for a legitimate target of our fears and inner need to blame. Of course there are Muslim people involved in the rallies and signing up for the Twitter campaigns, but that's little different than the NRA boasting of black and female members. The movement is really Islamophobia disguised as anti-violence and freedom of the press. It's a way of coming together against a common enemy, all the while denying our own involvement and contribution in radicalizing these misguided murderers.
Yes, these European leaders and others are hypocrites because of the abridgment of freedom of speech in their own countries. In spite of all our flaws, some of them full blown civil rights violations like the ones you mentioned, we still protect freedom of speech better than any other country I've seen.
ReplyDeleteAs for Southern Beale's commentary, yes, the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are inflammatory and insulting--and are intended to be so, and that's probably not helpful on some fronts, but we protect free speech here and encourage others to do so as well--even offensive speech. Your comments about not wanting to be aligned with their speech might have the tiniest amount of weight behind them if you and your co-bloggers didn't have a habit of posting commentary and pictures intended to be inflammatory and insulting of gun owners or dead gun rights activists who weren't even in the ground yet.
Finally, regarding the Muslims taking part in these rallies, they are a large share of the peaceful ones, and they are taking part because they don't like the direction they see the radicals taking their religion. But congratulations on calling them the dupes of "Islamophobes;" You have now managed to insult both the peaceful Muslims who hate these attacks, suggesting they are just dupes of the islamophobic Man, and the violent ones who support the attacks, by suggesting you can just buy off their piety with better treatment.
Addendum: This may be the first time this has happened, but I'll say that I salute Laci for his piece over at Penigma about free speech.
Deletehttp://penigma.blogspot.com/2015/01/je-suis-charlie.html
I've criticized him and others here for being tasteless asshats with regard to the posts on Melanie Hain he mentions, as well as other similar posts, but he draws the correct line between those, the Hebdo cartoons, and other offensive speech which we can criticize for being tasteless, offensive, etc. but cannot and should not ban. Bravo.
(And bravo also for poster Penigma over there who posted something similar. I may not agree on much with those two, but it's nice to see them supporting the notion of free speech.)
Yeah, I should clarify about the moderate Muslems who participate in these initiatives. I don't think they're dupes. I think they sincerely preach non-violence, much the way the occasional black or female NRA member sincerely believes in gun rights.
DeleteIm not on board with the je suis charlie crowd while I believe in absolute freedom to print what ever anyone wants to having a rally to show animals you are not afraid is just stupid and Im happy Obummer chose not to waste our money by attending a lets make ourselves feel good event.
ReplyDelete"In addition, most of the legions of "I am Charlie" followers probably fail to see the disgusting hypocrisy. A pen or pencil has become the symbol of the freedom-of-the-press movement, but just try to print something anti-Semitic. Incredibly, Charlie Hebdo itself disallows it. What kind of freedom of the press is that?".... Holy shit Mike does your own hypocrisy know no bounds man,you constantly censor things you do not want to post and then lie about it,I did not think my level of disgust for you could be anymore than it was, I was wrong.
" all the while denying our own involvement and contribution in radicalizing these misguided murderers." Your a delusional fool Mike
The comments I delete vs. the ones I approve cannot be compared to the magazine disallowing Jewish ridicule while allowing that of the prophet Mohammed - especially since they've become world famous for it.
DeleteIf you think our foreign policy has had no contributing effect, you're the delusional one.
That US foreign policy has helped to create enemy's around the world I have no doubt the difference is I have NO sympathy for them if the wish to do us harm fuckem let them die for their cause or god what ever they want nor do I care to understand how they got to that point and I don't care how the world has been unfair to them they can all fade away. I wont sympathize with evil.
Delete"The comments I delete vs. the ones I approve cannot be compared to the magazine disallowing Jewish ridicule while allowing that of the prophet Mohammed - especially since they've become world famous for it." ......Your hypocrisy is not the same as others hypocrisy right mike cant even compare riiight....This is the first time you have told the truth about your censoring of comments mike usually you lie and say you dont censor comments...good for you ...will you be telling the truth from here on or was this a one time deal?
Rah rah America. Only the other guys are evil, right?
DeleteAbout the comments, there have been times when I didn't delete any. Then there were other times when I did. I never lied about it. These days I delete what I find to be offensive or redundant. I don't delete comments in order to win the arguments. That should be obvious, in fact, some of the commenters believe THEY are winning the arguments. How can that be if I'm using the delete button to my advantage?
"Rah rah America. Only the other guys are evil, right?" ...America has done its fair share of horrible things and I speak against those things as they occur and the gov when it gets out of control no matter which political party may be in power at the time unlike some people..but overall your god dam right RAH RAH America some of us will not abandon our country because it has done such things...
Delete" I never lied about it" ...I see it was a one time deal huh Mike....lying about lying
"I speak against those things as they occur "
DeleteWhen did you speak out against the Iraq invasion? Or did you consider that a good thing, sort-of torture on a vast scale?
OK you wanna go back that far of course you do its pre Messiah ...Anyone that knows me knows very well that I think the Iraq and Afgan invasions were based on lies and greed. "sort-of torture on a vast scale" I am not against our Gov torturing people as long as it is not our citizens being tortured by our Gov or by others for our Gov.
DeleteI also spoke against the murder of a 16 yr old American citizen by our Gov because it was too difficult to try to arrest him, while others made excuses for the administration that ordered the targeted assassination.
I also dont like the patriot act which bush signed and obama made permanent
I also dont like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as it can make people disappear into a secret prison without any trace
I also dont like the defense authorization act or the federal reserve act and whole host of other transgressions against the American people by their gov
Well, George, why are you so antagonistic. We seem to have much in common.
DeleteWell, George, why are you so antagonistic. We seem to have much in common.
DeleteApart from the fact that Mr. Jefferson isn't trying to deprive scores of millions of Americans of their Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, you mean? Yeah--I guess you do have a lot in common, if you ignore that little detail.
Actually, I guess that makes three of us, since I wholeheartedly agree with everything Mr. Jefferson said above.
We do have much in common except you are comfortable with the idea that it is ok for you and those who think like you to ask others to sacrifice the rights that so many have shed their blood for because you are uncomfortable or afraid or simply think it is a good idea because of the times we are living in....I dont ever presume to know whats best for another citizen that is only for them to decide it is not the place of me or you to think we know how others should go about exercising their rights and freedoms to do so would be arrogant and elitist. In short I know the needs and wants of the collective to be second to rights of the individual and you arrogantly think the opposite.
DeleteIm not antagonistic Mike I just genuinely don't understand how you can find peace in yourself advocating for some of the things you do.
George is not antagonistic, just an insulting ass.
DeleteGeorge, unless you're for total anarchy, we're still more alike than different. It's just that you have an exaggerated attachment to guns and what I support threatens that - or at least in your paranoid mind it threatens it. The truth is, if you're a law-abiding gun owner, my ideas about proper gun control would not disarm you of your precious guns at all. You might be forced to be accountable for them, and you might have to go out and purchase a decent gun safe, and you wouldn't be able to sell guns to just anybody without a background check, but aside from those terribly onerous inconveniences, you'd still be good to go.
DeleteThe truth is, if you're a law-abiding gun owner, my ideas about proper gun control would not disarm you . . .
DeleteDon't you mean "if you've been law-abiding your entire life, with no history whatsoever of mental illness (same requirements go for all your roommates), if your vision is good, if the local authorities don't have some grudge against you and are not so opposed to private gun ownership that they arbitrarily deny you a license (an ownership license--not carry), if the guns you want don't fit into California's ever expanding category of so-called "assault weapons," if your landlord will allow you to keep a safe heavy enough to satisfy Mikeb in your apartment, if you can afford "gun insurance," etc., etc., my ideas about proper gun control would not disarm you"?
"George is not antagonistic, just an insulting ass." Thanks Fred I see you have the how to claim being the victim while being the perpetrator act down pat..Good luck Fred
Delete" It's just that you have an exaggerated attachment to guns and what I support threatens that" ....I have an attachment to our rights all of them and you dont and if thats wrong in your eyes so be it ill sleep like a baby at night.
DeleteKurt said it well...as long as we follow YOUR rules we would be good to go....Thats the difference here mike you think others should follow your rules and if they dont they should be punished where as I think everyone should keep their noses out of everyone else's life.
Bravo, Kurt. What a great post. I will tack on a few things however:
Delete"...and if you've never dropped a gun, and if you abstain from all alcohol, if you don't suffer from any degree of depression, if your significant other isn't mad enough at you to have the government disarm you by getting a restraining order, if you don't live in a city that wishes for further gun control than their state has (up to confiscating handguns and banning all transfers of long guns and ammunition)... then you're good to go. "
I feel like I am still missing some things.
It's OK for George to insult, but insult him back and he is the victim. HA HA HA HA HA HA
Delete"I think everyone should keep their noses out of everyone else's life."
DeleteGeorge, does that include murder and assault? Are you a true anarchist?
"and if you abstain from all alcohol" TS, please show us where I said total abstemiousness was a requirement for gun ownership?
"and if you abstain from all alcohol" TS, please show us where I said total abstemiousness was a requirement for gun ownership?
DeleteTS clearly doesn't need my help, of course, but perhaps he'll forgive me, knowing how much fun I have with this kind of thing.
Remember this, Mikeb?
Is anything wrong with requiring folks who claim to be responsible gun owners to maintain total abstinence from drugs including alcohol?
How 'bout this?
Enjoying one of those connoisseur beers that Breda was talking about, even one of them, is absolutely incompatible with gun ownership. Alcohol is a drug, it's used to get high. There's no place for getting high on drugs in the life of a responsible gun owner.
Thanks in advance, TS, for not begrudging me my fun.
Fred feel free to insult me all you would like to im not a victim of anything fire away...Good luck Fred
Delete"George, does that include murder and assault?" It includes any unprovoked violation of anothers rights(i.e. self defense is just when its use is provoked by a violation of ones rights) and no being insulted by another is not a just provocation for self defense unless there is a threat to to cause bodily injury
Delete"Are you a true anarchist?" No...I believe in a very limited Gov though
Kurt, for one who keeps claiming to be fairly good at English, you're sure having a hard time with this. I never said a person should be stripped of his gun rights for drinking moderately. I have said numerous times, including the quotes you uncovered, that one cannot claim to be responsible if he drinks or takes recreational drugs, however moderately.
DeleteI find it odd that you're confused about this (which makes me think you're just throwing up lying bullshit again to stir things up), since I've been roundly criticized by you and others for my statements about disarming people who drop guns in public. Dropping a gun is a disqualifier, drinking a beer is not. Is that clear now?
Kurt, for one who keeps claiming to be fairly good at English . . .
DeleteIn reply to your having referred to me as a "word maven," prompting you to accuse me of purveying "mendacious bullshit," for understating my facility with the language.
I have said numerous times, including the quotes you uncovered, that one cannot claim to be responsible if he drinks or takes recreational drugs, however moderately.
Well then, let's look at this, shall we?
Irresponsible and dangerous people should be prohibited from owning firearms.
If, as a gun owner, drinking moderately is irresponsible, and if irresponsible gun owners should be stripped of their gun ownership rights, then moderate drinking is grounds for forcible disarmament. Take a logic course, Mikeb--it's one of the first lessons: If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C.
Glad I could help.
Just the victim of your own anger George, as shown by your need to insult strangers.
DeleteThanks again for your input Fred ...Good luck
DeleteKurt, you are the master at finding obscure out-of-context quotes and using them to make a gotcha. But actually you know better than most what I stand for.
DeleteAnything I can do to highlight your shortcomings George, glad to help.
DeleteKurt, you are the master at finding obscure out-of-context quotes and using them to make a gotcha.
DeleteThe quotes are "obscure"? They're right out there in the open, either in your blog posts, or in your comments associated with the posts. And now you're on "context" again. OK--I'll play.
Is there something in the "context" of your multiple statements that even moderate alcohol consumption is incompatible with responsible gun ownership that leaves room for one or more exceptions to that rule? Have you outlined some "context" in which you believe it's fine (and responsible) for a gun owner to drink?
Or is it the other part--have you described a "context" in which you do not call for stripping the irresponsible of their right to keep and bear arms?
Which is it? If neither, "context" is irrelevant to this discussion.
But actually you know better than most what I stand for.
Given the way you lurch from one inconsistency to the next, I am less than convinced that you have a very solid idea of what you stand for.
Incredibly, Charlie Hebdo itself disallows it. What kind of freedom of the press is that?
ReplyDeleteFreedom of the press is not violated unless the government attempts to impose controls over what the media can say (or must say). When one element of the press imposes rules on itself regarding what's off limits, that element is exercising freedom of the press--not violating it. The cartoonist has a right to draw anti-Semitic cartoons, but no one, including Charlie Hebdo, has an obligation to provide him the platform on which to display such cartoons.
If a New York Times columnist suddenly started writing columns enthusiastically in support of the NRA (or even "worse," in support of GOA), said columnist would probably not last long on the staff, and I seriously doubt you'd be whining about "freedom of the press." You would be entirely correct not to.
That sounds kinda picky, Kurt, but fine, it's not a freedom of the press thing. It is hypocrisy, though, right? And the ban on holocaust denial writings would be an example of a violation of freedom of the press, am I right?
DeleteIt is hypocrisy, though, right?
DeleteI don't see why. Unless Charlie Hebdo has criticized other publications for not publishing content that violates their editorial stance, I see no hypocrisy in CH's refusal to publish content that violates theirs.
And the ban on holocaust denial writings would be an example of a violation of freedom of the press, am I right?
Yeah--I can't dispute that. But how many Holocaust deniers have been killed for their "crimes"?
There wasn't much of a big deal when Leo van Gogh was killed for directing a film illustrating the mistreatment of women living under Islam.
DeleteThe hypocrisy is that Charlie Hebdo does not allow anit-Semitic jokes but allows Islam mockery and calls it freedom.
DeleteThe hypocrisy is that Charlie Hebdo does not allow anit-Semitic jokes but allows Islam mockery and calls it freedom.
DeleteThat is freedom, and if some other publication chose to run cartoons lampooning Judaism, while refusing to publish any mocking Islam, that would be freedom, too (and the staff would probably be a great deal physically safer than the staff of a publication with the opposite editorial slant).
Again, it's not "hypocrisy" to extol freedom of the press, while simultaneously exhibiting editorial bias in what one publishes, It's obviously not impartiality, either, but it's not hypocrisy.
Semantic bullshit, Kurt. Call it what you want. I call it hypocrisy to fire an employee for antisemitism and continue to publish anti-Islam stuff in the name of free speech.
DeleteCall it what you want.
DeleteThanks for your "permission," Mikeb. How generous of you.
And how many muslims have been killed just for going to market on the day an extremist jew got all bent out of shape because a magazine printed a cartoon "blapheming" Moses.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny to watch MSNBC devote their air time 24/7 to the killings in the Paris newspaper office, but they refuse to show what the shooting was about.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean? That they won't show the offensive cartoons?
DeleteThat's right, they won't show the cartoons.
DeleteTheir choice, but it's funny. How are watchers supposed to know what their 24/7 coverage is about? If they won't show the cartoons maybe they should just STFU.
They should STFU unless they agree to show the cartoons? Really?
DeleteWell, my guess is it's all about scapegoating radical Islam. It, radical Islam and Islam in general, has become the boogie man that we can all look to for a legitimate target of our fears and inner need to blame.
ReplyDeleteAbout that. Would you agree that "radical Islam" and "extremist Islam" are terms sufficiently closely related as to be used interchangeably? Because if so, and if you believe that concerns about the threat posed by radical Muslim extremists are "scapegoating radical Islam," and that those voicing such concerns create a "boogie man that we can all look to for a legitimate target of our fears," it seems that you have moved rather a long way from a position you held not so long ago.
Back then, simply saying mean things about Obama on the TV news rose to the level of "treason" (a capital crime, let us not forget), according to you, because doing so (somehow) gives aid and comfort to our "enemy"--an enemy you identified as "extremist Islam," and that you considered so obvious an enemy that you accused me of being "full of shit" when I protested my ignorance of whom this (to that point unnamed) enemy might be.
So which is it to be? Is fearing the poor, persecuted radical Islamic faithful "scapegoating" radical Islam, or do these adherents to the Religion of Peace constitute so dangerous an enemy to the U.S. as to justify describing the act of providing any satisfaction they might derive from domestic criticism of Obama as giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" of the U.S.--a crime punishable by long imprisonment or execution?
Kurt, you've really gone out there to fabricate this gotcha. You're becoming a drag. I thought TS was the king of convoluted (slightly yours, hugely his) prolix responses, but with this effort, you take the crown.
DeleteIn other words, ya' got nuthin', I take it.
Delete