ACLU should make its stand clear on this?

Its about American Liberties.

Posted by: hutchrun at August 1, 2005 7:28 AM

Disney may be partly owned by Arabs and Muslims. Euro-Disney was bought, in whole or in part, by one of those front men for the Saudi money -- was it Prince Waleed ibn Talal, or Prince Talal ibn Waleed -- the one with the tic-infested face, whose check Giuliani ripped up?).

CAIR, together with whatever Saudis or middlemen it can call on, may have explained to Disney that, while Arab investors would be permanently disenchanted with the company, might suddenly jettison the stock, and that Disney animated pictures, the very kind of fluff that is the most acceptable kind of American movie for Arab audiences (save for "Aladdin") might no longer be shown in Arab movie theatres.

What's a poor Eisner to do? On the one hand, there is one man, Michael Graham. Oh, some in New York and among bloggers will be furious, but really -- how long can they stay furious, and even if they are furious, what really will they do to Disney? But the Arabs mean business, so it makes business sense -- the only kind of sense that matters these days -- to discharge Michael Graham. Let him sue. We'll fight it. Perhaps we'll pay him off. Still, we will have gotten CAIR, and various indignant members of the Arab League and the Al-Saud family, off our backs.

What counts are the profits. If need be, profits without any honor whatsoever.

Posted by: Hugh at August 1, 2005 8:04 AM

And the action by CAIR proves that Graham has in fact understated the truth. CAIR, as a well-funded, mainstream Muslim group, claims to represent the views of 'moderate Islam'. But what does moderate Islam desire? Not confrontation with violent radicals, not a 'reclamation' of the Islamic religion, but the silence, the suppression of any critique whatsoever, or even information, like Spencer's reproduction of what jihadists say and the texts used to justify their actions. CAIR wants silence and propagation of the lie that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Forget reclamation. Forget making Islam better. How about making Islam rule, making Islam an irresistable force that cannot be opposed, even by those who would try to fight with the First Amendment.

Posted by: JTF at August 1, 2005 8:17 AM

Hugh: A very good point there.

The best would be that as much dust and dirt as possible is raised on this. Let the `satanic` verses that Graham quoted (to support his assertion) come to the fore, and let that public that has been `turned over` by CAIR be now exposed to this `peace` that CAIR retails.

Perhaps, Disney should be thanked.
But only after weeks of demonstrators outside their offices with placards like `Islam Kills` etc etc.

SATURDAY, JULY 3O, 2005

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!! A special "thank you" to everyone who has called or written 630 WMAL on my behalf. You have left the entire organization stunned and amazed. And you've done the impossible--left me speechless.
http://www.michaelgraham.com/

Posted by: hutchrun at August 1, 2005 8:20 AM

What 'd I say? Money talks.

If you wanna complain call Al Waleed!

(or Jaques Girac, his messenger)

Posted by: Terminator at August 1, 2005 8:22 AM

Next thing we know we'll see minnie mouse wearing a burkha...

Posted by: restitutor orbis at August 1, 2005 8:52 AM

I have just written to WMAL from a form on their website. I mentioned that I listened to their broadcasts via Internet in France.

It will help Michael Graham's case if WMAL are aware that all over the world we are watching how this case proceeds.

Posted by: Sebastien at August 1, 2005 9:42 AM

CAIR is living walking proof that “moderate Islam” just doesn’t exist beyond the Moslem imagination.

I don’t think the liberal ACLU types will touch this one, unless requested by CAIR.

Posted by: Bar at August 1, 2005 10:36 AM

Al jazera west Broadcasting Company a.k.a. ABC fires DC talk radio host Michael Graham for speaking against terrorism - and gives voice to terrorist Basayev.

Posted by: PCKills! at August 1, 2005 10:36 AM

restitutor orbis -

Next thing we know we'll see minnie mouse wearing a burkha...

'tis not for lack of trying:

Aicha Baha, a Muslim employee of Walt Disney World sued Disney, alleging that she was fired because she wouldn't remove her head scarf at work.

ABC's dhimmitude falls in line w/msm trends. CBS unabashedly ran the anti terror fatwa report with an image of an Adulterated AMERICAN flag.

The islamist agenda is no longer cloaked or guarded in any form . . . our msm willfully sells us out.

DISGUSTING

Posted by: miira at August 1, 2005 10:43 AM

"Let him sue"

Indeed. And he should accept no settlement offer short of a complete reinstatement (plus reimbursement for legal fees, pain and suffering, etc) CAIR doesn't want this to go to court. US courts have this nasty trait of trying to ferret out the TRUTH. Truth is the worst enemy of islam and CAIR. They backed off of Pipes, and they will back off of Graham, too. Anytime their ties to terrorism or the nature of jihad in islam could be subjected to this kind of scrutiny, CAIR can be counted on to back down.

Posted by: NonProphet16 at August 1, 2005 10:54 AM

"we'll see minnie mouse wearing a burkha..."
-- from a posting above

For the "Mosqueteer show." Annette Funicello later went on to appear in such movies as Beach Blanket Bingo. So we've seen her in a bikini. Bikini or burqa, what does it matter? As long as the kids are happy.

Posted by: Hugh at August 1, 2005 11:57 AM

Believe it or not, in the thirties, forties, fifties, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck stood in the eyes of many Europeans for all that was good about America and liberty. They genuinely helped to spread the ideas that NATO defended. This was the time when Disney's greatest writer ever, Carl Barks, creator of Uncle Scrooge McDuck, coined for Soviet Communism the memorable one-word description "Brutopia". It was a time when Disney did not doubt America or itself.

"Well it was long ago and it was far away/
And it was so much better than it is today."

Posted by: Paolo at August 1, 2005 12:08 PM

[THIS POST IS VERY LONG, BUT I PROMISE THE PAY-OFF AT THE END WILL BE WORTH IT!]

I found this article published in 1995 in the on-line cinematic arts journal Kinema. It concerns some Muslim reactions in Southeast Asia to a 1993 Disney movie called "Alladin".

The two authors of this piece reveal, apparently unwittingly, aspects of hypocrisy among Muslims and a rather sordid side of Islamic culture, even as they are trying to sensitively “explain” both the Muslim response to the global imposition of Western pop culture, as well as Western ignorance of Islamic culture (of course, ignorance of how good it is).

They introduce their piece (my comments in CAPS and brackets):

“Much been said about the reception of Walt Disney Incorporated's 1993 film Aladdin by Arab-American groups in the United States. However, little has been written concerning the reception of the film in other parts of the world, especially in those nations with significant Muslim populations”—specifically, “nations of Southeast Asia with large Muslim populations”, including Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore.

[THE AUTHORS TRY TO AFFECT NEUTRALITY CONCERNING MULTICULTURALISM:]

“our intention in this paper is not specifically to establish whether or not the film is, or should be regarded as, insulting to certain national or ethnic groups...”

[THEN THEY REVEAL THE BIAS INHERENT TO MULTICULTURALISM:]

“That the film could be regarded as offensive to Arabs and Muslims seems fairly easy to understand. Some critics have argued that a film that stereotyped African-Americans or Jews as Aladdin did Arabs never would have been released. And, as an Arab-American critic of the film pointed out, although Jasmine and Aladdin are positive Arab characters, they speak American English, as opposed to the heavily-accented English of the evil characters -- in fact, the character of Aladdin was modelled on the American actor Tom Cruise. This ethnic and nationalistic stereotyping is not a new phenomenon in Disney cartoons or in animation in general; as Jonathan Rosenbaum pointed out in 1980, this "submerged nationalistic propaganda," as he called it, can be seen as early as Pinocchio in 1940, in which the protagonist, Pinocchio, and the good fairy both have American accents, while the villainous characters have either Italian or English accents.

"We can go further, and point out that Aladdin is one more successful attempt by Disney to Westernize, and even Americanize, an artistic product of another culture. As we saw in the Gulf War, other cultures tend to be valued in the West in relation to their usefulness to the West; the Arabic fairy tale of Aladdin became raw material for the Disney machine, which produced not an authentic depiction of an Oriental culture and its products, but an American cartoon depicting the Arabic world and its people as both exotic and humorous. The emancipated genie, with his Goofy hat and other Disney World paraphernalia, is not only an advertisement for Walt Disney Incorporated, he also serves as an unintended symbol of the "Mickey Mousing" of the world and its various cultures.

"Just as the cultures of the world are being consumed by Disney, Western culture is being sold to the world. [THERE'S YOUR PC ZEITGEIST MENTALITY RIGHT THERE] A recent issue of Singapore's The Straits Times reported that WDI "is preparing the ground for a large-scale assault on the heart[s], minds and pockets of consumers in South-east Asia." Referring to the establishment of The Walt Disney Company (Singapore), Brandt Handley, the managing director of the new company, said:
The umbrella is up. Under its cover, all the other aspects of Disney's business -- theme park marketing and television, film and video distribution -- will enter the region. Consumer products were the trail-blazers. Like the guy going into the jungle with the machete, we clear a path for Disney's other divisions to set themselves up. That's the strategy we employ all over the world. The company seems to have found a willing "victim"; in 1993, Singaporeans alone spent S$15 (about US$10) per capita on Disney paraphernalia, exclusive of the money spent on film admissions themselves. [ARE THESE THIRD-WORLD ASIANS CHILDREN OR ANIMALS OR ROBOTS? HAVE THEY NO FREE WILL AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHOICES THEY MAKE TO BUY, OR NOT TO BUY, DISNEY "PARAPHERNALIA"???]...

[NOW HERE'S WHERE THE AUTHORS CAN'T HELP BUT LET A LITTLE REALITY SEEP THROUGH THEIR PC FILTER:]

"Although it is not difficult to see why Disney's Aladdin is insulting to Arabs and Muslims in general, it seems unlikely that the film's offensiveness can be blamed on Jewish motion picture executives eager to indoctrinate young audiences with negative stereotypes of Arabs, as was suggested by some Arab-Americans.

"By mid-April 1993, Aladdin had grossed over $200 million in North America... Walt Disney Incorporated expected to gross another $250 million in the international market, and a large share of this gross certainly was expected from Asia. Asia did not disappoint Disney. [NO ONE POINTED A GUN TO THE HEADS OF ASIANS TO GO SEE THE MOVIE BY THE THOUSANDS]

"Aladdin ran into few problems in Singapore; the island's largely Chinese population apparently found little to be offended by in the film, and if the nation's Muslim population was offended, it certainly was not vocal in its opposition to the film. Across the straits in Malaysia, however, this was not quite the case... Malaysia was torn by conflicting attitudes concerning the film and its depiction of the world of Islam.

"...the Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement (Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia, or ABIM) urged the Malaysian government to ban the film as well as the soundtrack on cassettes and compact discs. The group included the soundtrack in its attack, as did Arab-American groups in North America, because of the alleged racism of the lyrics of the opening song of the film, in which an Arab character sings: "Oh, I come from a land, From a faraway place, Where the caravan camels roam. Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face. It's barbaric, but, hey, its home."

"According to ABIM's secretary-general, Anuar Tahir, "[Aladdin] is racist, [and] ridicules Arabs as well as Muslims in general. Malaysia, as a country which upholds moral values, should prevent the dissemination of such messages in our society. The film is not suitable for Malaysian audiences."

"[Nevertheless,] there was nothing like the mass demonstrations of outrage that [in Malaysia] accompanied, for example, the publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, outrage that resulted in government intervention to ban the book [AH YES, MALAYSIA, THAT "MODERATE" ISLAMIC NATION...]

[NOW HERE'S WHERE THE TWO PC AUTHORS AGAIN CANNOT HELP LETTING A LITTLE REALITY ABOUT ISLAMIC CULTURE SEEP THROUGH THEIR PC FILTER:]

"How can we account for this lack of media attention, and the apparent lack of public outcry [in Malaysia and among South Asian Muslims in general], regarding Aladdin?

"Aside from the fact that Disney movies and cartoons most certainly have far more fans in Malaysia and the rest of the Muslim world than does Salman Rushdie, there are a number of other factors involved.

"First, we must realize that although the Malays are Muslims, they are not Arabs. We don't mean to suggest that the Malays are insensitive to insults to their Arab brothers and sisters [HEAVENS NO, WE KNOW THAT ALL MUSLIMS LOVE EACH OTHER AND NEVER KILL EACH OTHER OVER TRIBAL, RACIAL, REGIONAL AND RELIGIOUS DISPUTES]...

"...but the reaction in Malaysia most likely would have been much more negative if the characters stereotyped offensively in the film had been more obviously Muslims, rather than specifically Arabs. [WATCH CAREFULLY HOW THE AUTHORS WILL CONTRADICT THEMSELVES ON THIS POINT, COMING UP SHORTLY...]

"...it seems clear that for most viewers, whether Occidental or Oriental, animation is not something to be taken seriously. [HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? THEIR ARTICLE HAS FOOTNOTES TO MANY OF THEIR ASSERTIONS, BUT NONE TO THIS ONE ABOUT THE OPINION OF "MOST ORIENTAL VIEWERS" CONCERNING THE MEDIUM OF ANIMATION].

[OKAY HERE GOES: THE AUTHORS REPORT THAT] "...the film did indeed appeal to the majority of Malaysian viewers. Although it may seem odd to Westerners that a film that is fairly widely regarded as offensive to Arabs and, to a lesser extent, to Muslims in general, should appeal to a Muslim people, the film Aladdin in most respects is exactly what Malaysians love in a motion picture. It is melodramatic (or overly melodramatic, some would argue); it tells a love story about two attractive characters, a beautiful girl and a handsome young man, one rich and one poor; it contains many romantic songs; and it even has some mild violence thrown in for good measure. In other words, in most respects it is an animated version of the typical Malay movie. [OH OH, THEY'RE BEGINNING TO SOUND "RACIST"...]

[OKAY -- HERE IS THE DELICIOUS PIECE DE RESISTANCE:]

"And the depictions of Islamic law in the film -- for example the threatened punishment of the amputation of Jasmine's hand for inadvertently stealing an apple, or the beheading (that didn't actually occur) of Aladdin for stealing a loaf of bread (or for consorting with the princess Jasmine; it never is made quite clear) -- is rather tame compared to the punishments meted out in many Malaysian period films, in which characters routinely suffer amputations of various body parts, or are speared, beheaded, and/or burned alive, all in the name of Allah. Anyone familiar with Malaysian cinema should have no problem understanding why audiences, in general, chose to ignore calls to ban or boycott the film and instead treated themselves to an evening of song and romance."

Posted by: metaxy at August 1, 2005 1:06 PM

One has to choose: butter or olive oil, pen or pencil, le rouge ou le noir, Mickey or Donald. I'm with Donald. He was always testier than always too goody-goody Mickey with his high-pitched voice. Indeed, Homer Simpson has far more Donald Duck coursing through his imaginary veins than he has Mickey Mouse. Minnie and Daisy were both ciphers, but Minnie even more so. And the retinue of Donald was always more intreesting than that of Mickey. The best Mickey had to offer was Goofy, and evil Black Pete. But Donalad had his Uncle Scrooge, diving into his money just before, for the umpteenth time, he faces threats from the Beagle Boys, from whose clutches Donald's three nephews, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, will rescue him, and there was slick Gladsone Gander, with his spats, and Gyro Gearloose the Rube-Goldberg inventor (nicely italianized as Archimede Pitagorico) -- oh, Donald was far superior to Mickey, in every way.

In continental Europe, but especially in Italy, what helped do it the Disney characters was the arrival of Charlie Brown, and Lucy, and Snoopy. Every little children's notebook began to sport, if not Tex Willer, a homegrown fumetto (comic-strip) version of spaghetti westerns long before those spaghetti westerns were ever made, then Charlie, Lucy, Linus, and Snoopy. Now it is hard to get mad at Charlie Brown, still less at Charles Schultz. But they were characters less --less completely American, a little more internaional. I assume that Umberto Eco has written at least one essay on this subject -- he always does. Donald Duck, and Huey, Dewey and Louie (Qui, Qua, Quo in their Italian versions) -- they were real Americans.

Let's not get started on Bugs Bunny.

Posted by: Hugh at August 1, 2005 1:11 PM

Speaking of The Simpsons, in its long career, it has, scores of times, poked fun at and even mocked Judaeo-Christian personages and symbols -- including the Bible, Protestant Christianity, Jesus, Moses, and Yahweh Himself. Not once has it ever poked fun at (let alone mocked) anything remotely Islamic (with only one extremely mild exception that proves the rule). I know. I have seen every episode, many of them more than once.

PC ZEITGEIST LAST 50 YEARS.

Posted by: metaxy at August 1, 2005 1:49 PM

There is a motto that I apply to the Simpsons: if it's on the show, it's not true. There was that thing back in Jan. thereabouts, where the Simpsons were supposedly anti-American values, and there was a clip on the cartoon news from Iraq, hailing them as their new heroes and shooting bullets into the sky. Because of this, you know the Iraqis are not anti-American or shooting bullets to celebrate ppl like this. I think this is what is good about the Simspons.

Regarding Hugh's comments on Donald, yes you're right. He is the better man. I have the collection on DVD of the Donald cartoons and one of Mickey. I watch the Donald one more.

Posted by: Ibn Rushd at August 1, 2005 2:13 PM

Ibn,

"There is a motto that I apply to the Simpsons: if it's on the show, it's not true. There was that thing back in Jan. thereabouts, where the Simpsons were supposedly anti-American values, and there was a clip on the cartoon news from Iraq, hailing them as their new heroes and shooting bullets into the sky. Because of this, you know the Iraqis are not anti-American or shooting bullets to celebrate ppl like this. I think this is what is good about the Simspons."

I have no idea what this paragraph you wrote means. Is English your first language? Could you please clarify what you wrote?

Posted by: metaxy at August 1, 2005 4:54 PM

Well Metaxy since you have your shorts wrapped around PC, let me share with you my wisdom,knowledge and experience. Being an old fart (though probably not as old as Hugh), I can remember ranting and railing about PC, when it first reared it's head.

PC is concurrent with the Civil Rights Movement, and the rise of Holocaust Revisionism and a new wave of antisemitism.

That's right my friend, the PC culture purpose was to make racist and antisemitic remarks and teachings not politically correct.

50 years ago the words "nigger", "spic", "kike" were pretty common, as were rants against people of color and Jews.

So now that the PC culture bites you in the butt, you no longer have any sympathy for it and consider it the enemy.

As in all things human, short term gains (like liberal immigration policies) and long run unintended adverse consequences.

Too bad people don't think before they leap.

Posted by: Giaour at August 1, 2005 7:50 PM

Giaour,

Did you read my other response to you from another thread where I said that the PC movement is complex and represents a twisted excess evolving out of GOOD INTENTIONS?

Posted by: metaxy at August 1, 2005 8:47 PM

No Metaxy I didn't read your response on the other thread. Truthfully I have a busy life, and don't have time to hang around and monitor threads.Sorry.

Yes, PC does represent a twisted excess evolving out of good intentions.

However where does it stop and start, or is there another way of describing the problem without calling it PC (My suggestion).

I also spend a lot of time on so called Liberty Forum Like you, and many here they also rant against PC, however the target of their animosity includes the target of many here (such as immigrants, (mostly Mexicans), gays, feminists, but also preponderantly Jews under the veiled euphemism of Zionists or Khazars. They hate PC as much as you and others on JW/DW do, but with a difference,(they are Islamophilic and believe the Musims are getting framed and a bad rap) and no they aren't neo NAZI's, though I'm sure there are a few of those, but (hold onto your seat)Catholics and non Evangelical protestants. There are only a handful of JW/DW types on that forum, and a lot of right wingers, Christian and Jewish (anti Zionist)libertarians, besides at least a thousand muslims (it seems).

These people rant and rail against PC, and the consensus seems to be Islamophilic, believing that suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, beheadings, kidnappings are MOSSAD,CIA, MI5 false flag ops.

They don't believe in the Holocaust, and they believe that everything is a Zionist plot, yet they aren't Marxists (a favorite negative epithet is calling someone a Marxist or Statist), nor are they necessarily NAZI's, though some are certainly.

And one of their major complaints is "moral relativism", Gramsci, John Dewey's progressive education and cultural Marxism. (Sound familiar?)

But they bitch, bitch, bitch about PC, and how it is a form of social control and social terrorism.

The hatred of racial minorities, "liberals", "leftists", "Marxists", "statists", Jews and Zionists (not necessarily one and the same) just seethes out of their pores.(Not all, but enough to say it seems to be a consensus attitude).

Here's some comment from a Catholic gal,(very Catholic, misogynistically so, that she doesn't believe that women should vote). Her sentiments are shared by many, especially the Catholics on that forum.

I don't think they can do that without the jig's being up re: terror being an "islamic" thing as opposed to an "illumined" thing ... more in keeping with the gratuitous destroying for sport of the sacred at Dresden, Nagasaki and, most recently, Serbia.

And let's not forget the Israeli siege at Bethlehem ... replete with FX the former Soviets helped us with at Waco. (If not also Israelis, such as those currently being installed as consultants to metro police coast-to-coast.)

There are plenty of Muslims who know that the Church has stood by their nations, alone against the UN/US-AID strongarming and bribing into pop-control, "women's rights" style equality and radical reformation of the family. (I think it really pays to remember this particular initiative of ours -- eradicating the "authoritarianism" of patriarchal German families what predisposed them to obey orders -- as our Reconstructionist forces occupied in earnest for a time.)

And even more perfect than our imperfect communion with the Prots is the fact they revere Christ's mother, albeit maintaining he was a prophet. That means something.

We'll see more Mohammedans than Secularists on our side at the Last Battle, I bet.

Posted by: Giaour at August 1, 2005 9:24 PM

Giaour-

That little lady puts the whack in whacked.

(Hopefully her annotated, leatherbound, hob-nailed copy of the 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' falls off a VERY high shelf and leaves her temporarily paralyzed and in the care of a nice black nurse who converted to Judaism and likes to whistle the German national anthem WAY off-key while she changes the gal's adult diapers FOR A MONTH.)

Posted by: BigSleep at August 1, 2005 11:41 PM

Giaour,

That forum you mentioned represents an interesting subcategory of the use of the term "PC", but I really think it's rather eccentric. The predominant use of it is -- now after 911, 411 and 7/7 (not to mention all the other Muslim atrocities) -- by anti-Jihadists who see the oily apologies for, or even blatant defense of Islam, as "politically correct" -- i.e., the correct "truth" in sarcastic contrast to us, who are the "incorrect" wrong ones (according to the Leftists).

Your observations pick up on an interesting ironic paradox I have long noted (and I wrote this to you before, though maybe you didn't go back to check):

1) By and large, it is the pro-gay, pro-feminism, pro-sexual freedom, and pro-freedom of expression Left who are defending Islam -- one of the most reactionary, anti-liberal movements on the Planet now.

2) And, by and large, it has been those who think homosexuality is wrong, who have lots of problems with feminism, and who have Puritanical tendencies about sex -- it has been these right-wingers who have been most forthright about condemning Islam in their criticisms & condemnations POINTING OUT HOW PATHOLOGICALLY EXCESSIVE ISLAM IS IN GOING TOO FAR WITH THE VERY SAME ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL, ANTI-SEX AND ANTI-FEMINISM ISSUES.

The fact that a right-winger who thinks homosexuality is a disease (e.g., Mike Savage) is more capable than most Leftists of seeing through the bullshit and can stand up to condemn Muslims who go 1000 times too far in putting homosexuals to DEATH -- that to me speaks volumes about where rationality has been preserved on the Left/Right spectrum in our culture.

Posted by: metaxy at August 2, 2005 1:29 AM

Who said the ACLU won't weigh in on this unless CAIR asks them? CAIR has the ACLU in their back-pocket. The ACLU has lost so much credibility with me because they have been sleeping with CAIR all this time, (and not behind our backs, but in public), flaunting their affair, as if that gave it some legitimacy. This is worse than a taudry Hollywood scandal. After all, they are using words [AMERICAN, CIVIL, LIBERITIES] = these are our words, folks - these IS fighting words! I believe we had a few thousand men, per war, (and poilice actions) die for these words....

Posted by: JW gal at August 2, 2005 10:28 AM