Arrgh!
"Obviously they had a huge affect, I'm not sure whether they had their intended effect." -a cartoonist heard on NPR. Emphasis his.
_
respond?
(2)
02:34:13 PM,
Tuesday 7 February 2006
-
So, Danish cartoons.
First off, I don't like political cartoons. Occasionally there are good ones, but it's rare that anyone overcomes the medium, which lend itself to simple-minded, thoughtless indignation. For obvious reasons, it has difficulty getting past caricature. Also, because it has a few superstars, they tend to become hideously self-important. But put that aside.
So, the cartoons themselves. The paper more or less decided to have a blasphemy contest. This should in no way be illegal. The blasphemed party or his followers should have no legal recourse. Simple, right? But there are two problems.
The first is that legal and moral are entirely seperate. As a practical matter, publishing these cartoons has clearly not helped anyone except a few troublemakers in the Muslim world. They were not amusing, they were not insightful. There were two possible purposes: either the offense was intended, or the offense was an instument to a higher goal: testing free speech limits, because what cartoonists want more than anything else is to be loudly oppressed. (see Ted Rall above, who is worried that everyone is forgetting about his horrible oppression.) I have more respect for the cartoonists if they are actually anti-muslim. Pretending to be anti-muslim to see if anyone will oppress you isn't noble, it's provocation. It's legal, but it's despicable. I think the paper should apologise for printing them.
But what about the government? The government isn't responsible for the content of the papers, after all. If it truly believes in free speech, no matter how stupid and dangerous, then it should not apologize. But...
I realize it isn't Denmark, and that British papers haven't printed the cartoons, but Abu Hamza is on trial for soliciting murder and incitement to racial hatred. The first charge, fine, but the second? Apparently a tape of him calling England a toilet is considered evidence in the trial. Once a government gets into the business of banning hate speech, then it does need to justify everything that is published under it's control. An then, some smartypants in Iran is having a parallel Blasphemy contest about the Holocaust, which will undoubtedly offend lots of Europeans. Lovely. I would clearly rather they didn't, but I have no patience with those saying it isn't a direct parallel, and that it should be legal. Saying that the Holocaust is more sacred than Mohammed means this is admitting that this is a culture war. Saying that one is racism and the other simply religious bigotry is too fine a point; are racially defined religions given protections that universalist religions aren't? Will the Danes and the French reprint the Iranian cartoons? They'll certainly be as newsworthy as the original Danish cartoons. Print and be damned is the most coherent position, but it's still a tragedy. The truth is that it is a culture war, that objective censorship, or even an objective editorial policy, is impossible.
This isn't to say I have any patience with anyone silly enough to get offended at such cartoons. But people are silly. Those who encourage and provoke such rage are evil, which may or may not be worse than being silly.
Back to the proposed Iranian counter cartoons. Since Iran makes no pretense of a free press, that the government is responsible for what is printed in the papers? Yes, I think so. So if what they end up printing offends us, we may be offended. Freedom of offense. The importance is that we not let our offense wander too widely. Taking offense is part of life, but morally speaking, one should not extrapolate from that offense to others, and leave it where it belongs. The trouble is when people take offense for others, specifically, on behalf of God. Let God deal with it. He doesn't need you protecting him.
So more or less, everybody is wrong, and it's all a great big terrible mess. I need a cup of tea.
_
respond?
10:57:28 AM,
Tuesday 7 February 2006
-
"Hurrah for vulgarity!" An obituary of the gardener Christopher Lloyd.
_
respond?
09:42:21 AM,
Tuesday 7 February 2006
-
Sedevacantist Antipopes.
_
respond?
(1)
04:06:42 PM,
Sunday 5 February 2006
-
I've got Presidents' day off! That means 3 day weekend, 3 day weekend, 4 day weekend, 3 day weekend! (assuming my workload behaves itself). It isn't time and a half, but it'll do. Maybe I'll have time to write my christmas cards!
_
respond?
05:02:31 PM,
Thursday 2 February 2006
-
Is it generally considered awful manners to be late for your own meeting? Or is the hold music making me excessively irritable? If there's any use for computer-generated music, it's hold music. Anything at all would be better than this stuff that I've heard so many times.
_
respond?
04:06:06 PM,
Thursday 2 February 2006
-
Note to self: Listen to the Minus Five.
_
respond?
(2)
10:03:30 PM,
Wednesday 1 February 2006
-
Blog entries I haven't made:
Danish Cartoons: First in a weekly series of posts where I tie myself in knots around a difficult issue without getting anywhere.
Currency reform: first in an occasional series of posts on non-politicized issues that I'm capable of having a clear opinion about.
An apology for making (okay, watching Erika make) opera fudge for people, putting it in boxes to give to them, but then eating it all before getting around to delivering it.
Something about the strangely fascinating bloggingheads.tv
_
respond?
05:43:05 PM,
Wednesday 1 February 2006
-
Attached fenders to bicycle. Hacksaws are wonderful things. So are these headlamps. Best random present I've ever received, though they're marketing it all wrong: They think it's for outdoor adventure, when really it's for reading in bed and messing about with cars, bicycles, picture frames and the like. The emergency/signaling mode is in fact the cat-worrying mode.
_
respond?
(1)
05:59:47 PM,
Sunday 29 January 2006
-
Taxes done. Don't believe the federal fillable PDFs when they say they can be saved with the data included. It may be possible, but just pressing save doesn't do it, but you don't find that out until you go back and try to open it.
_
respond?
12:49:40 PM,
Sunday 29 January 2006
-
120 hours in the past 13 days, for a project that it might be cancelled within the week, and will be if they have any sense, though there's no reason to think they have. But now it's the weekend. I feel almost giddy at the prospect. Time to go home and do taxes.
_
respond?
04:40:43 PM,
Friday 27 January 2006
-
'an MR' or 'a MR'?
_
respond?
(8)
05:01:07 PM,
Thursday 26 January 2006
-
site & script courtesy of Moss
