ooohhhhhhhh...it hurts their feelings.

When their cult stops killing innocents and hurting others feelings, then they continue to get "Mo Toons".

Posted by: freewoman at March 7, 2006 3:34 PM

If every newspaper in the Western world would publish them, and others like them, routinely, as a matter of course, so that the spell of fear is broken, and Muslims in the Western world will have to adjust to Western laws and Western rights. They of course will be free to express in print their own disapproval of such cartoons, but not with death threats, not with howling mobs. That is what the right of free speech, that took centuries to develop, means. They will have to read Milton and Spinoza, James Madison and John Stuart Mill and Michael Oakeshott, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Learned Hand and Alexander Meiklejohn, and see if any of it convinces them.

And if it doesn't convince them? Too bad.

Posted by: Hugh at March 7, 2006 3:36 PM

The paper's editior actually chose one of the cartoons that is 100% truthful. There is nothing in it that can be used to stereotype a majority by a caricature a few. The Koran speaks of woman being required to cover theirs heads and bosom with a single draping, and Islamic art has often pictured Mohammed with the face obliterated. So what is disrespectful of portraying two universal Islamic truths? The response in addtion to refusing to apologize should be so sue me.

Posted by: Lisa at March 7, 2006 4:05 PM

I should add the part of Mohammed holding a sword is also well depicted in Islamic art, the flag of the Islamic Dictatorship of Saudia Arabia is two crossed swords, and in 7th century Arabia swords were a common a fashion statement.

Posted by: Lisa at March 7, 2006 4:11 PM

The religion of peace don't give me peace but scares me ever since 911 and the continual terror attacks by islamists sleep is difficult we are all victims as muslims terrorise us. We should carry signs Muslims give us some rest stop revoltingstoff your hatred it is enough it is enough.Do we have a memorial web site to Muslim victims? If not ?

Posted by: mark52 at March 7, 2006 4:18 PM

So BOTH of the muslim students at the University of S. Alabama were offended?!

Just kidding. I have no idea how many muslim students there are in Alabama, but I wouldn't think there are many.

On the other hand I wouldn't of thought of Tampa Florida, or Northern Virginia as hotbeds of islamic activity either, and yet here we are.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at March 7, 2006 4:20 PM

It would even be better if more newspapers publish what is published in the Muslim countries newspaper cartoons showing demeaning attacks made to Jews and Christians as a way to bring to light the reality of hypocracy in the Muslim world. This could get the Muslims who live in the west to put more pressure on the newspapers in the home countries that they are from.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 7, 2006 4:37 PM

Hugh,

I disagree.

More howling mobs, please.

The more the better.

And roll tape.

Posted by: PRCS at March 7, 2006 4:48 PM

can l exhale soon as l am holding my breath waiting for papers to print those muslim cartoons! it is going to take grassroots, underground, student papers to get this going..

Posted by: Lulu at March 7, 2006 4:50 PM

Original editrial from the University of South Alabama newspaper

http://www.usavanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/13/43f091aa0508d

A truly free press must not cower down to extremist
EDITORIAL
February 13, 2006

RECENT CARTOONS DEPICTING MUHAMMAD IN AN UNFLATTERING WAY, have caused uproar among some members of the Muslim faith. Originally published in the Danish newspaper daily, Jyllands-Posten, a total of 12 cartoons have been circulating throughout the media worldwide. Members of the Muslim faith have since retaliated, killing between ten and thirteen people with bombings on European embassies in the Middle East.

While the cartoons are considered to be in bad taste, and offensive, is it really worth bombing embassies in order to protest over a cartoon? In retaliation, many Muslims are gathering to burn Danish flags and show their disapproval of the Danish newspaper to print the original cartoons.

Although the editorial staff at The Vanguard does not approve or support the intent of being offensive for the sake of being offensive of the cartoons, we firmly stand behind freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Regardless of content, the cartoon did not inflict physical harm and should be considered expression of thought, not a reason to go and promote violence.

---SNIP----

Posted by: dennisw at March 7, 2006 4:52 PM

The Koran speaks of woman being required to cover theirs heads and bosom with a single draping, and Islamic art has often pictured Mohammed with the face obliterated.

I thought that was one of the cleverest cartoons actually. Many of the slightly-disapproving, semi-apologetic, I-can-see-both-sides commentators made a point of saying that the cartoons were not good cartoons - not well-executed or particularly striking. (As if that were relevant.) I thought the cartoons were pointed but still good-natured - clearly because none of those cartoonists had a malicious bone in his body.

But that one was clever, because to me it suggested a blindness in Mohammed and a connection between that blindness and the women being covered except for their eyes - subordinated.

I have been reading through this article, and it says something that has been becoming clear to me:

Thus, the ontological being in Islam is not defined by individual right but clearly as integral part of the community in terms of a whole and "holy" entirety. In this context the primary form of human being is seen in the male that assumes the right and duty to assist Allah in conserving and expanding his "umma", meaning his community.

It has been becoming clear to me for awhile that "morality" simply does not mean the same as it means for us.

There was a discussion on an earlier thread about the Kantian conception of "respect for persons". We are in a completely different moral universe here. I am strongly reminded of Sir Karl Popper's analysis of the society in Plato's Republic. (See especially Chapter 6. Popper, incidentally, suggests that there may be some connection between what the invading Dorians actually were like and Plato's idealized society in the Republic.)

Anyway, to get to the point - "morality" in Islam's mouth is a collective concept. "Morality" means whatever furthers the interests of the collective - the umma - and secondarily "morality" for Islam is about relations of dominance and submission.

When Daniel Dennett in a very foolish piece (yes, I know he's a professional philospher and I'm a blog poster) in today's Telegraph says;

It's just like the Muslim's disgust at some of our cultural practices. We should respect the Muslims, empathise with them, take their disgust seriously ...

Chuck it, Dennett.

I think he misunderstands what this is about. (And, incidentally, why have so many so-called "liberals" who've been breaking down mores in the West for years suddenly discovered morality? - why do they want to turn round now and tell us this? If some more conservative souls in the West have been speaking for some time of a decline in morals they are, at least in part, expressing a fear that individuals will harm others and themselves. It seems to me that this Muslim disgust is fear for the cohesion of the umma - and fear for the relations of dominance and subordination breaking down.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 7, 2006 5:04 PM

Lulu

Here's one

The Undercurrent

Posted by: Lisa at March 7, 2006 5:09 PM

I have taken the time to annotate each of the original twelve drawings with some info that may not be readily apparent to most readers.

If you'd like a copy, feel free to email me at robertcorrow@sbcglobal.net.

Many in the press have opted to 'describe' the drawings in lieu of publishing them, assuring their readers that the 'descriptions' were sufficient.

After you review the annotated drawings, you absolutely will know that claim is nonsense.

Posted by: PRCS at March 7, 2006 6:18 PM

Mr Ape Pig they are here in Tampa but so far they just frown at my bumber stickers, t shirts and quickly lower their heads and walk away. Maybe, they have to group up before voicing their displeasure. I'd bet the guy in Bama has plenty of bacca chewing, truck driven, buddies watching his back (and most of the football team), he should be fine. I will apologize for him. I am terribly sorry he was just a campus newspaper editor and not a billboard king. I think a 25 ft long cartoon of old mo would be a sight to see and bring credit to islam and its glory.

Posted by: Ronin at March 7, 2006 6:18 PM

er bumper, oops

Posted by: Ronin at March 7, 2006 6:19 PM

I just played my old vinyl of Lynnard Skynard
"Sweet Home Alabama" just to celebrate this small victory for free speech.
Go Southern Man!
uk warrior

Posted by: WarriorBlood at March 7, 2006 7:17 PM

No better place to slamma
That Sacrilege: Islamma,
Than Southern Alabama!

(Where the skies are so blue...and the Governtment's true)

Posted by: jsla at March 7, 2006 8:07 PM

(even if I'm a Yankee through and through!)

Posted by: jsla at March 7, 2006 8:12 PM

"It's just like the Muslim's disgust at some of our cultural practices. We should respect the Muslims, empathise with them, take their disgust seriously ..."
-- from a posting above, quoting Daniel Dennett, who has elsewhre presumed to present as an Original Idea the psychological promptings, that Deep Biology, that explains -- in Dennett's view -- religious belief.

Daniel Dennett's comment is revealing. What it reveals is that he does not believe that in order to comment on Muslim "disgust" with the West, as he sees it, he is required first to read, and study, Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, or to read and study the history of Muslim conquest of non-Muslims, and their subjugation to Muslim rule, over a long period (1350 years) and a wide space (from Spain to East Asia). What does he think permits him to scant this necessary study, and to assume that Muslim attitudes can be explained as merely, or mainly, "disgust" with Western "cultural practices." On what basis does he conclude this? That they don't like women dressed the way Western women are dressed? That they don't like our easy ways, our lack of religious fervor, what?

Could it be tnat none of these matter so much as one thing: that we are Infidels, we are not Believers, and that Islam is a belief-system based firmly on a world divided between Believer and Infidel. And Islam is a belief-system entirely based on the idea of the collective, not the individual. And the individual Believer owes his entire allegiance to Islam and to the umma al-islamiyya, the Community of Believers?

Daniel Dennett may think of himself as a skeptical soul, disinclined to accept things on faith. Why then does he accept on faith all the usual cliches about Islam? This smiter of religious belief, or rather this discoverer of the deep biological promptings of religious belief (as if William James, Bertrand Russell, and thousands of others had not written the same, only better, before), seems strangely unskeptical of that belief-system that itself does so much to discourage, in its own adherents, the spirit of free and skeptical inquiry.

Astounding. And it makes one leery of whatever else Daniel Dennett may presume to have on offer. If this is how he writes about Islam, one hesitates to trust him on other matters.

Posted by: Hugh at March 7, 2006 8:47 PM

Muslim Students 'demand' an apolgy from the brave American students for those 'Motoons'.
Why should they apologise?
This is not Islamabad.
We are not living as 'spongers' of American economy.
If the Koran says not to draw Motoons,it is for you Muslims-NOT for us.
Those Motoon killings around the world made all the civilized world to stay away from these people,and give two hoots for their faith.
Standup for your rights you students- You are in a free country.Who are they to dictate to you to apologise? After all they are all 'Spongers',just sponjing our economy.See,in Denmark.the Mullahs go around the Muslim world,and spread the fire of hatred,by showing false cartoons,which was not connected to Mohamed at all, as done by the Danish cartoonists,and after that,returning to Denmark to stand in line to beg for the free unemployment allowances. What a shame.When the West unites as one strong nation against this menace and oust it away from our midst.

Posted by: rafia at March 7, 2006 8:52 PM

"It's just like the Muslim's disgust at some of our cultural practices. We should respect the Muslims, empathise with them, take their disgust seriously ..."

Yet wherefor do Mulims take our disgust with their culture seriously?

In dennisw's post above there is a link to the original editorial. At the end of the editorial ae the comments received. When I last looked there where 96 comments, all but less than the fingers on one hand being written by a Muslim. Each one of these comments perverted the whole concept of free speech in some way to draw the same conclusion, that is there is no right in the infidel world to insult their most perfect man of all time.

There was one Mulsim comment in particular that said the government does not give people a right to free speech. That is actually a very true statement, at least in the U.S. Under the U.S. constitution, all powers of the government are derived from the people. The Bill of Rights is a reservation of rights in the people that the government can not infringe upon.

Posted by: Lisa at March 7, 2006 9:10 PM

The vast majority of Muslim students are
foreigners-Arabs or Pakis. Where do they
get the balls to demand that Americans,
in their own country, conform to their demands?!

Posted by: george_rem at March 7, 2006 9:46 PM

Ronin,
No need to be so formal. Please call me Ape.
I would actually like to apologize to the editor. I am sorry that no one in the US MSM has his intestinal fortitude.

And if I may paraphrase Lynyrd Skynyrd...
"Well,I hope Mr Mohhamed will remember, A Southern Man don't need him around, anyhow."

Heres to all the Baca chewing, pickup driving buddies everywhere. Hopefully they are watching all our backs.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at March 7, 2006 9:46 PM

Hugh from above: Could it be tnat none of these matter so much as one thing: that we are Infidels, we are not Believers, and that Islam is a belief-system based firmly on a world divided between Believer and Infidel. And Islam is a belief-system entirely based on the idea of the collective, not the individual. And the individual Believer owes his entire allegiance to Islam and to the umma al-islamiyya, the Community of Believers?

The bottom line, and right on the money...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 7, 2006 10:38 PM

Is there any point 12 mild cartoons can fade into the background? Is this like 732 or 1099? Will there be monuments to cartoon martyrs?

Posted by: Beagle at March 7, 2006 10:52 PM

Mr. Ape Pig Wrote: "I have no idea how many muslim students there are in Alabama, but I wouldn't think there are many"

Actually Alabama has a large Muslim population with concentrations in Birmingham, Huntsville, and Mobile. The fastest growing ethnic minority in Hoover, Alabama are Pakistanis. In Birmingham they even have a large Islamic school (Wahhabi of course)and two Mosques. There is even an active chapter of Hamas in Birmingham as well as Iranian, Pakistani and Arab restaurants and halal markets. In fact, Muslims outnumber Jews, two to one in Alabama and this number doesn't include the all-black N.O.I. cult of Louis Farakhan.

Fortunately, Alabama's large Arab Christian community still outnumbers the Muslims. The Arabic speaking Christians are served by Melkite, Maronite, Copt, and Syrian Orthodox churches. There are more Christians from Ramallah in Birmingham than in Ramallah.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 7, 2006 10:54 PM

Oh yeah, people from north and central Alalabama affectionately refer to the area south of Montgomery (which includes Mobile) as L.A. meaning Lower Alabama. This is appropriate because the women from the Southern L.A. are infinitely prettier than the silicone actresses from the L.A. on the left coast.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 7, 2006 11:04 PM

Christians were subjected to "Christ Pissed". Jews are subjected to vile "editorial" cartoons on a daily basis from any number of newspapers in their neighborhood. Neither group goes out and, in reponse, destroys lives and property. Now, a relative "now", since the cartoons are actually getting a little long in the tooth and are turning into a bit of a yawner, old news as it were, it is the muslim turn. Welcome to the world, bucko.
Not your world. If you want to go to your world, you know how to get there, go to the 7th century and hang a left. Our world, thats a different story. Our world, our country, our institute of higher learning. Protected by our Constitution and our rule of law. Supported by gainfully employed citizens participating in a capitalist system of free markets, private property, division of labor, and rational inquiry in support of constant research and development. Citizens who pay taxes to fund our government, part of which goes to pay officials who are freely and openly elected by those same citizens, a government and elected officials that said citizens are free to criticize without fear of reprisal, criticism of government being the merest tip of the old iceberg of RIGHTS and FREEDOMS that form the foundation that the majestic human story that is this country arises from.

I've heard one or two people think that this system sucks. I imagine one could argue that there are some rough spots that could use tweaking but, looking around, there sure aren't any alternatives that I would swap for, and it damn sure wouldn't be any system that would originate from some dysfunctional little pissants who, chests puffed up all indignant and selfrighteous, stomp around demanding an apology for every perceived insult, cultural affront, bruised sensitivity, or disrespected tradition.
Absolutely nothing you offer is worth giving up even one period at the end of a sentence in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or even my tax bill for that matter, not considering what it stands for.

And we damn sure don't have anything to apoligize for. But you do. The difference is, we aren't going to bellow, burn, and murder to force you to make it.

Posted by: t-ham at March 7, 2006 11:11 PM

Mr. Ape Pig, there are quite a few muslims in Alabama, oddly enough. Montgomery is crawling with them, and so is Mobile. Georgia has quite a few also; they are swarming in Atlanta, mostly Palestinians, reprehensible, disgusting vermin. They hold "Save Palestine" rallies every year, when muslim scum from all over the world flood the streets of Atlanta with their HAMAS banners and other assorted bullshit. I loathe the disgusting creatures and their political agenda, which is not an American issue and should not be brandished in our towns and cities. If they want to fight a political battle, they should do it where it matters because nobody around here gives a damn. Israel is all that matters to us; the "Palestinians" can go straight to hell, where they belong. South Carolina hasn't been spared either. Columbia is fortunate enough to have its very own branch of CAIR to look out for the interests of muslims in SC and the southeast. They're everywhere; in big cities, small towns, and everywhere in between. It is sickening.

Muslims have invaded every state in America by design and in keeping with their agenda to Islamicize America "one state at a time." They're not making as much progress as they anticipated, needless to say. I don't think the idiots realized how big America is. They are even in Alaska! Not a single state has been spared the muslim invasion.
.

Posted by: Susanp at March 8, 2006 12:36 AM

I am not talking about evangelism but Christians can tolerate the smearing and persecution. Muslims cannot tolerate the Islam smear campaign. If they are going to live in our western lands, they must live or abide by our laws and customs. If they do not like it here, then they should leave. Such solutions of mass deportation of Muslims or Internment camps will never happen because we are still in denial that Islam is at war with us. On the other hand, Christians and Jews are murdered in Muslim lands and their killers get away with it.It is time to reclaim our sovereignty in our western nations. If we do not, Islam will have sovereignty over us, and we cannot let this happen. Our nations are so used to "giving in" to "special interest" groups, and Islam sees this as an opportunity.

Posted by: Islamisbad at March 8, 2006 12:55 AM

The Islamcomicbook-site is back up, without the comic-book! Check it out:

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=Am.ItCJzRjr6fOvr6J99LPVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2czNiMWdlBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANGNjA5Xzc3/SIG=11ec21m89/EXP=1136591277/**http%3a//islamcomicbook.com/

This is a real gem from the site:

A special note: some misguided folks didn't like the somewhat raunchy words to "Winds of Jihad". Our webmaster's take on the problem is that they words were written by people of the world who don't like Islam, and they expressed their feelings in words more appropriate to a barroom than to a church service. If you don't like the words, don't read the lyrics or listen to the song. We've had nearly as many complaints from Christians about the Islam Comic Book website than I have had from Muslims. They say that the site is not "loving". And radical, Islamic Jihadists are? That is so bizarre.
Well, to mitigate the problem, we have posted an "Explicit Lyrics" warning on lyrics pages that may contain language that offends the sensitive ears of certain people. It looks like this:
Caution: contains explicit lyrics.

Watch out folks, soon coming to a church near you!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 8, 2006 4:43 AM

Everybody's focussed on the free speech aspect of the cartoon affair. What is just as dangerous or more so is the way the Muslims get away with assigning collective guilt. That is, all Danes are guilty for what one paper and 12 cartoonists did. All Christians are guilty, so therefore Nigerian Muslims have to slaughter Christians in Nigeria, who are fellow Blacks, in order to punish Christians for the cartoons, etc. This treating people in categories and not as individuals is dangerous. To be sure, it is not limited to Muslims, but of course they take it to crazy extremes, as they do most things. Let's not hear Arabs, Muslims or their Western apologists complaining that Israeli defensive measures are "collective punishment."

Posted by: Eliyahu at March 8, 2006 7:03 AM

Susanp,

You're right about Montgomery also. Maybe they like the warm climate and friendliness of the South. I know there is a big concentration of Islamic organizations in Virginia also.

But on a lighter note:

After his death, Osama bin Laden went to heaven. There he was greeted by George Washington, who proceeded to slap him across the face and yell at him, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"

Patrick Henry approached and punched Osama in the nose and shouted," You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."

James Madison entered, kicked Osama in the leg and said," This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"

Thomas Jefferson came in and proceeded to beat Osama many times with a long cane and said, "It was evil men like you that provided me the inspiration to pen the Declaration of Independence!". old, but good--and probably true.

These beatings and thrashings continued as John Randolph, James Monroe, Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and 64 other early Americans came in and unleashed their anger on the Muslim terrorist leader.

As Osama lay bleeding and writhing in unbearable pain an Angel appeared. Bin Laden wept in pain and said to the Angel, "This is not what you promised me."

The Angel replied, "I TOLD YOU THERE WOULD BE 72 VIRGINIANS WAITING FOR YOU IN HEAVEN. WHAT DID YOU THINK I SAID?"

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 8, 2006 8:15 AM

AS far as Tampa being a Muslim destination to live work play and make Jihad -- Back in the early 1990s I had a Muslim Shi'ite friend. He was from Lebanon. He was cultured and I even lent him Thomas Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem". Which happens to be a great book, Friedman was smart and fresh back then.
His family was in the hotel business and he talked about how Peter Jennings (was the ABC Middle East correspondent for years) stayed at their hotels and was a good friend of the family

This Muslim friend would often talk about his cousins who owned gas stations in Tampa and were making big money and how his dream was to move there and buy one himself. He spoke about how there were many fellow Muslims in the Tampa area. Perhaps he's there now.

Posted by: dennisw at March 8, 2006 8:18 AM

"I even lent him Thomas Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem". Which happens to be a great book, Friedman was smart and fresh back then."

"His [Shi'ite friend's] family was in the hotel business and he talked about how Peter Jennings (was the ABC Middle East correspondent for years) stayed at their hotels and was a good friend of the family...
-- from a posting above

As to Friedman's book -- read it again, or rather look at it again, in the light of what we all now know about Islam. Do you think the book makes sense of anything? It does not, it can not. It may not have the Friedmanesque Grand Reductionism (The world is: 1) divided between the Lexus and the Olive Tree 2) flat 3) whatever will fill the bill for the next best-seller, to be dashed off in a few months with the help of assistants, the contents of which will provide the sound-bite fodder for appearances on Charlie Rose and those business conventions at which, for a mere $45,000, you will be in the numinous presence of the simple-minded Tom Friedman, who will simplemindedly provide you with simple-simon soundbites suitable for repeating to friends, relatives, and so on as the "explanation" for what is going on in the world -- the economic world, the only world that counts.

As to that hotel stayed in by Jennings -- but of course. A great friend of Arabs and Muslims was Peter Jennings. He understood them (which is to say, he understood nothing about them, because he understood nothing about, and had no desire to learn about, Islam).

If you want to know the full story of someone like Peter Jennings, then you'd have to talk to one of the former housekeepers for the Jennings household. Kati Marton won't talk. Or to some of his many "friendlettes" including the wives of dying colleagues. A thoroughly unpleasant character, Peter Jennings, beyond his incessant narrow-eyed nastiness about Israel. But who, among his fellow celebrities, such as Ted Koppel of Sanibel and Points North, would ever hint, or allow himself to think, that Peter Jennings was awful, as he was? Too many of those celebrity journalists -- not journalists at all, in the older sense -- ar up to the same or similar tricks in their grotesquely luxurious and thickly-cushioned-from-reality. One confuses hither-and-thither reporting from exotic places, with a knowledge of those places, but Jennings was a master at refusing to sink below the surface of things, especially in the Middle East, and never acquired an understanding of Islam. He was like someone teaching English literature who did not know English. The words "dhimmi" and "Jihad" never crossed his lips. One wonders what he made, or could conceivably have made, of the books of Bat Ye'or, or of Western scholarship (the real thing, not the esposito stuff) on Islam. Though stationed for years in the Middle East, he never took the time to find out.

Why should he? No networks ever demanded such knowledge from him, just as those who hailed and then hired the comical Friedman never asked him to study Islam, never apparently thought that his ignorance in that area just might make his opinions on earth-shaking matters just a little less -- what is the word? convincing? authoritative? sensible? You choose the word you prefer).

Friedman is silly, Jennings was sinister, as he cuckolded an elder, dying colleague. Both displayed in their work insufferable ignorance and, what's worse, showed no understanding of how they had a duty to study and lessen that ignorance. Both were mere reporters, and remained mere reporters; they never could make sense of men and events. They had a lot in common. Friedman, no doubt, does not enjoy quite the sentimental life that Jennings did. And Jennings did not gesticulate in the clownish fashion that Friedman does.

Those are the main differences.

Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2006 9:54 AM

Hugh, you must at least admit that Hama rules is an immortal chapter from that book. As for the rest of "Beirut to Jerusalem", I must re-read it. I still have my copy. Friedman is a worthless now. 

My conversations with my Muslim friend took place in Boston

Posted by: dennisw at March 8, 2006 11:06 AM

Hugh. Your description of the Tom Friedman money making machine is 100% correct. Fine deconstruction as you follow the money. The man is in love with himself.

I caught a bit of him (10 minutes) on TV in the recent Davos conclave. He was moderating a forum and it was revolting

Posted by: dennisw at March 8, 2006 11:11 AM

Provoslavni and Susanp,
Thanks for clearing up my misconceptions (hopes) regarding Alabama.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at March 8, 2006 11:18 AM

"you must at least admit that Hama rules is an immortal chapter from that book..."
-- from a posting by "dennisw" above

No. There is not a word that Friedman has ever written, or spoken, of which I am aware, that was not clumsy, vulgar, trashy, hopelessly stupid. His entire career is an indictment of so many things which I won't go into here.

Occasionally he deviates into sense, when he says the obvious things, the things everyone knows to be true, such as "we need to lower Arab oil revenues," but it is always in a context that shows his continuing miscomprehension of larger matters.

The spectacle of Tom Friedman at Davos -- that's just Ossa upon Pelion, isn't it?

Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2006 5:16 PM

Hugh, you might like this:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:nPDOCxHGLc0J:www.billmon.org/archives/000986.html+%22Tom+Friedman+at+Davos%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Friedman

Seeing Tom Friedman at Davos this year was to see the Peter Principle in its late stages -- when the inadequacy and egotistical overreaching have become obvious to all but the victim. Even several people I know who generally share his world view told me they found his strutting pomposity almost unbearable this year.

I was only exposed to a small dose of it, at a session on U.S. foreign policy I ducked into on Saturday. Friedman was up to his usual tricks -- lecturing European diplomatic leaders on their moral failings and expounding on the differences between how the Bush administration took America to war in Iraq and the much superior way that he, Tom Friedman, would have done it.

Someone told me he was even worse at a dinner session he moderated earlier in the week -- holding forth at length on the view from Planet Friedman in the same pseudo-folksy tone he uses in his columns.

It's sad, really. Friedman was a great beat reporter, once, and then a pretty good columnist on Middle Eastern affairs. But at some point along the way he seems to have convinced himself he's a foreign affairs guru -- a deep thinker in the Foreign Affairs tradition. It's been all down hill ever since, producing drivel such as the Lexus and the Olive Tree and a steady increase in the number of columns that revolve around Tom Friedman's thinking on the great issues of our time, instead of the news of the day.

Given time, I'm sure Friedman will reach the same level as the Washington Post's Jim Hoagland or Knight Ridder's Trudy Rubin -- both of whom have become little more than journalistic name droppers of "the Prime Minister personally assured me" variety.

And of course, since he works at the New York Times, Friedman can probably continue to rise beyond the level of his own incompetence for a long, long time -- who knows? maybe to the very top.

Like most self-important people, Friedman now tends to speak in aphorisms -- as if his adoring biographer was already by his side, jotting down every word. At the session I was in, his big bon mot was to chide the Democrats for not understanding that "something may be true even though George Bush believes it."

After listening that gem, I jotted in my notebook: "Friedman is the textbook definition of the 'useful idiot.' But useful to whom?"

Posted by: dennisw at March 8, 2006 6:34 PM

The Angel replied, "I TOLD YOU THERE WOULD BE 72 VIRGINIANS WAITING FOR YOU IN HEAVEN. WHAT DID YOU THINK I SAID?"

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 8, 2006 08:15 AM

Loving puns, I almost LOLd. Thanks.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 9, 2006 9:29 AM