are you now or have you ever...

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Who Are The Wusses?

Well, now, it appears that Comedy Central has capitulated to implicit threats from the world of Islamic fascism by engaging in that old standby, self-censorship. Obviously, the producers fear the violence always lurking around certain practitioners of the Religion of Peace, and the potential human devastation and litigation looming large down that path. And it is not easy to blame them.

Back in the days when men were Men, no President, no Secretary of Defense, no Secretary of State, no congressional leaders of any party would allow American citizens to endure the threat of such violence, let alone its infliction, without a clear and wholly credible message delivered, even if only quietly, to the governments of nations in support of such violence, or at least in a position to influence the behavior of the terrorists. To wit: Americans anywhere in the world enjoy their human rights as delineated in the Constitution and the American response to any deaths or injuries or damage resulting from terrorist acts will be answered by magnificently excessive force inflicted in the dead of night upon those who have or would do us harm. There will be no second chances. Please take note, Mullahs of Magnificence and Assad the Child.

But it appears that compassionate conservatism is heavy on the former and rather light on the latter. All the Beltway is Jimmy Carter now.


Hunter Baker said...

I think it tells a lot that Comedy Central is willing to allow horrifying caricatures of Christ, but cannot bear to permit even a fleeting portrayal of Allah. I love this sudden discovery of sensitivity.

Tom Van Dyke said...

It's a business. But more importantly, it would be Comedy Central HQ that would get bombed, not Parker & Stone, the South Park creators. It is the Little Eichmanns who would die.

Just like most US newspapers wouldn't print the Danish cartoons, nobody wants to be first. (Or only.)

(A point South Park made exquisitely with the people literally playing ostrich, denying any Little Eichmann complicity in the cartoon, even to the point of refusing to look at it.)

But we shall hang together, or hang separately. It was the newspapers who needed to make a stand together, a month ago, and simultaneously, hanging together, but they failed us.

They are journalists first, they say, Americans second. If at all.

As Mr. Baker points out, an admirable sensitivity to the religious beliefs of others is not the operative dynamic here.

Forgive me for blaming the newspapers' pervasive leftism. They simply do not take Islamicism seriously.

Or perhaps they do take Islamicism seriously, and that's the nature of their cowardice. Freedom entails responsibility, and rights carry obligations, too. The First Amendment isn't a one-way street.

"Speaking truth to power" has no moral merit when the "power" won't hurt you.

Islamicism has "power," the power to murder you. Speak truth to it, or quit.

I can respect either decision. But like the man said, lead, follow, or get out of the way.

(Amen, Ben.)

James F. Elliott said...

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart," - H. L. Mencken.

James F. Elliott said...

Here's a question:

If there is a real possibility, as you seem to indicate, that publishing or transmitting a caricature of Muhammed will result in lost lives - whether through irrational action or not - where does the onus lie? If you have respect for life, do you have a responsibility not to publish or transmit the caricature, even if you will not take any of said lives?

If you know that displaying a certain piece of media will result in death, do you display it to make the political statement, consequences be damned?

I ask this because posters here such as Tom and Hunter have been very insistent that there is a legitimate argument for torture: that willful inaction (not torturing) may result in the death of innocents, whatever one's personal ethical revulsion to the action at hand; the need to preserve life must take precedence under that logic. To follow that logic, one must also accept that to take willing action to make an ideological point may also cost innocent lives, therefore requiring you, in this case, to NOT act in order to be equally respectful of life.

Quite a conundrum.

Tlaloc said...

"I think it tells a lot that Comedy Central is willing to allow horrifying caricatures of Christ, but cannot bear to permit even a fleeting portrayal of Allah."

Huh? Have you seen Superbestfriends? Christ and Allah were both mocked. So was Buddha. So was Lao Tzu. So was Krishna, Joseph Smith, and Moses.

If anyone has room to complain it is the mormons. Their show on the founding of mormonism was brutal (but funny).