I find it a bit ironic that the Islamofascists that have their panties all in a bunch over a cartoon are availing themselves of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press to call for a limit to the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.
What is unbelievably ironic is the NYT's tuesday editorial saying this:
"The New York Times and much of the rest of the nation's news media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words."
________________________________
Yet on another another page elsewhere in the NYT, an article was written about the cartoons which showed a color reproduction of the famous "Dung Mary." (which they easily describe in words, but I guess they also chose to show the picture).
No contradiction there eh, NYT??? Unfrigginbelievable.
Jill:
Same editor? Same section of the paper?
You realize that the NYT is a fictional entity made up of different people with different agendas right?
Your lack of understanding of how work is done in "message control" industries can't really do much for you professionally.
Jandrew, I'll just let your posts speak for themselves, while we all laugh.
Meanwhile, back in the land of the living, RWS I thought this might interest you. A paper in Illinois wouldn't run Pro Life ads because they found them too "graphic"......
What was too "graphic" was just a picture of a sonogram......amazing, huh?
http://www.cnsnews.com/
ViewCultu...L20060209a.html
Well, it seems that link isn't working.
Anyway, the ad had a picture of kleenex and said something like "Americans, THIS is tissue, THIS is not. And they showed a picture of a baby in a sonogram photo.
And they rejected that as too graphic.
I saw that on the news. I couldn't believe it either. When you think of the things they DO show. Unbelievable.
It's called denial.
A few months back I posted on this blog my opinion that Bill Bennett is not a racist.
I may have been wrong. Engaging in this type of hate speach against 1/5th of the worlds population is simply idiotic. I can't image that this is what CNN had in mind when the hired him, but it appears he has lost a screw or two along the way.
what a joke! Those guys all worried that Bennet is putting down the Muslim faith like they don't do that ALL the time with the Christian faith.
What hypocrites.
I personally would rub their noses in it. Free speech is a principle, not something well-meaning people can waive if it offends someone.
Their willingness to kill Jews is REAL offensive to me.
It's all sadly Pavlovian.
More proof, as if any were needed, that we remain mammals even as we reach for the stars.
More proof, as if any were needed, that we remain mammals even as we reach for the stars.
Errr, you expected our reach for the stars to deprive us of body hair and mammary glands?
Body hair recedes, boobs grow.
Go figure.
Commenting by HaloScan
