Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » The Yale University Press and a Book About Cartoons

The Yale University Press and a Book About Cartoons

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Yale University Press is dedicated to principles of independence, academic freedom and scholarship; it adheres steadfastly to those principles without fear or favor; without regard to whether its actions cause anger, adverse comment or praise. Its honorable decision to publish The Cartoons That Shook the World minus a reproduction of the actual cartoons demonstrates YUP's fearless adherence to its principles.


YUP is to be commended for its willingness to court popular criticism. Few publishers of significance would be willing to risk outrage of the sort engendered by publication of only a bowdlerized version of the cartoon book. In an August 14, 2009 press release announcing its decision, YUP modestly declined to acknowledge that its courageous goal was to stimulate such criticism and thereby to encourage the sort of freedom of expression it well knew would be directed against it. Instead, it took the much-disputed position that its decision was made to promote public safety.

After careful consideration, the Press has declined to reproduce the September 30, 2005, Jyllands-Posten newspaper page that included the cartoons, as well as other depictions of the Prophet Muhammad that the author proposed to include.

The original publication in 2005 of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad led to a series of violent incidents, and repeated violent acts have followed republication as recently as June 2008, when a car bomb exploded outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing eight people and injuring at least thirty. The next day Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombing, calling it revenge for the "insulting drawings."

Republication of the cartoons—not just the original printing of them in Denmark—has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world. More than two hundred lives have been lost, and hundreds more have been injured. It is noteworthy that, at the time of the initial crisis over the cartoons in 2005–2006, the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe declined to print them, as did every major newspaper in the United Kingdom.

Despite this self-effacing explanation, it should be obvious that YUP's motivation had nothing to do with public safety; the chances of violent attacks against YUP, or even Yale University as a whole, resulting from publication of the already widely seen three year old cartoons in a scholarly volume, likely to be read by few, are laughably remote. Any suggestion that the copious free publicity for YUP certain to result from its decision was a motivating factor must also be rejected. YUP does not need publicity, good or bad. It is already one of the top thousand or so academic book publishing companies in the United States and would be shocked at the prospect of massive demand for one of its learned books. YUP fears the publication of a bestseller as the gods fear Sarah Palin. Even more ludicrous is the mean-spirited charge that Yale University was motivated by a desire for financial assistance from such Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia. YUP doubtless has plenty of money, and the thought that Yale University might stoop to such mercenary thoughts is unthinkable.

These nonsensical theses must be put aside. YUP was merely following cherished Yale University Guidelines, known to and respected by all members of the university community.

[T]he history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.

YUP courageously subjected itself to violent criticism from the proponents of free speech precisely to encourage such attacks. And vehement attacks there have been. Here is an article reporting and elaborating upon some of them.

Cary Nelson, the President of American Association of University Professors (AAUP), quickly responded on August 13 with a biting letter, "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands." Yale's action struck the AAUP as creating much more harm. Yale violated "an author's academic freedom and [damaged] the reputation of the press and the university." These actions would impact "other university presses and publication venues" and "[had] the potential to encourage broader censorship of speech by faculty members or other authors."

It goes on and on, as do many other such articles; indeed, they continue to this day, more than two months after the initial announcement.

How better to encourage "unfettered freedom," thoughts of the "unthinkable," mention of the "unmentionable," and challenges to the "unchallengeable?" Indeed, how better to boldly go where no man had dared to boldly go before? By actively promoting a heretofore unthinkable freedom to suggest that YUP may have had some ulterior motive or, indeed, even that it was strangely misguided, was a truly courageous and brilliant exercise in generous self sacrifice of a type, magnitude and generosity rarely seen. Sadly, "the Yale faculty has mostly yawned."

It is nevertheless regrettable that some, even within the enlightened Yale Community, were taken in by YUP's  hoax heroic decision, and blamed it on cowardice. One undergraduate commendably proclaimed in the Yalie Daily that there are legitimate limits to freedom of speech.

While most of us would defend the free-speech rights of "birthers" or Klansmen or fraternity misogynists, we defend those rights in a manner that makes clear we don’t want to see those rights exercised in violation of our sensibilities and beliefs. Some ideas are not welcome at Yale, nor should they be.(emphasis added)

I cannot agree with that too much! Indeed, it warms the very cockles of my heart and sole [sic] to learn that Yale is a far better and more liberal place than when I floundered around intellectually there as an undergraduate more than forty years ago, and that only the right to exercise freedoms which do not offend is now desired.

Despite this entirely reasonable statement of principle, doubtless taught by the illustrious academics at Yale, the author attributed the YUP decision to fear, and expressed the odd (but captivating) view that

I would be prouder to belong to a university whose officials censored a book because of what they believed in, and not because of what they feared.

But, as demonstrated above, fear had nothing to do with YUP's selfless and productive decision. Voluntarily going into harm's way by encouraging attacks on one's adherence to noble principle is not inspired by fear. It is inspired by courage and willingness to suffer the adverse consequences of one's actions. Lux et Vomitus Lux et Veritas! — a motto now engraved on the hearts of all Yalies in Latin, Arabic, and also for the moment, in Hebrew.

Powered by

About Dan Miller

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    So Dan,

    Did they publish this review at the Yalie Daily (this is really what the idiots call their paper? Feh!!)?

    And BTW, what was YOUR nickname in the Skull & Bones society?

    Best,
    Ruvy

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Ruvy, Skull & Bones? What’s that? Something to do with Halloween?

    The Yalie Daily is the nickname lovingly given the to Yale Daily News by the inmates.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Clavos

    “We are poor little lambs
    Who have lost our way,
    Baa, baa, baa…”

    Parenthetical Dan, it’s good to see your excellent scribbling back on these pages once more; however fleeting the experience may be…

  • Baronius

    Chief Justice Roberts was recently asked if the elite backgrounds of the Justices made them out of touch with the average person. He answered: “First of all, I disagree with your premise. Not all of the justices went to elite institutions; some went to Yale.”

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    While I agree that the decision to publish the book without including the cartoons is more than a smidge ludicrous (it reminds me of that not-too-long-departed era when libraries would stock sex manuals but censor the illustrations), I don’t really buy the free speech argument here.

    Yale is a private educational institution, not a state university, correct? And anyway, isn’t their decision not to engage in what they evidently see as offensive speech just as much a protected right?

    So: stupid – yes. Foul – no.

  • http://www.europenews.dk Henrik R Clausen

    This is irony, right?

    There’s no courage in not doing the obvious due to fear of the repercussions.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Doc, I don’t think I suggested that YUP had violated the U.S. Constitution. It can decline to publish whatever it pleases for whatever reason or lack of reason it wishes.

    I do think that its action makes a mockery of “Yale’s official opinion . . . that ‘the history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.'”

    Of course, I realize that the thinking behind YUP’s action was nobly to encourage criticism of Yale, and thereby to encourage the exercise of free speech, as suggested. On the other hand, it is possible that encouraging Yalies to “discuss the unmentionable” simply had reference to undergarments.

    Dan(Miller)

    Giggles, bites tongue and exits unable to decide whether to laugh or cry

  • Clavos

    I disagree, Doc.

    Constitutional issues aside, the very bedrock of education is (or should be, particularly in an elite school) the free and unfettered interchange of ideas, even at “private institutions.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Clav, Clav Oh Clav — Where have you been? I hope you are not suggesting that the well known Constitutional provisions mandating political correctness be ignored! Just think of the unthinkable results: gasp! Just trying to think of them gives me the willies.

    Dan(Miller)

    Shakes uncontrollably and tries unsuccessfully to stumble away to a better universe where such unmentionable notions are never mentioned.

  • zingzing

    it is rather ridiculous to put out a book about controversial cartoons then leave out the most controversial (and deadly) cartoon in recent memory.

    that said, if i were the publisher of this book, i’d leave them out as well. i wouldn’t want any deaths hanging over my head.

    it’s a sticky issue, and although they took the coward’s way, it must also be said that the cartoons themselves aren’t particularly complex, so a written description of the cartoons (i trust they are covered in the book) does suffice. also, if you really want to see them, you’re a few mouse clicks away. (exactly two, plus a little typing. i checked.)

    of course, the news last month that an arab group in the netherlands is currently in court over a cartoon (which questions the holocaust) just makes this whole flap more ridiculous.

  • Clavos

    that said, if i were the publisher of this book, i’d leave them out as well. i wouldn’t want any deaths hanging over my head.

    That’s the wrong way to look at it. No publisher of those cartoons has yet killed anybody. Islamic Jihadist terrorists have.

    Acquiescing to their demands in the face of threats and terrorist acts just encourages and emboldens them; what should happen instead is the world (including peaceful Muslims) should join forces to hunt them down and put them on trial for war crimes.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “That’s the wrong way to look at it. No publisher of those cartoons has yet killed anybody. Islamic Jihadist terrorists have.”

    well, that’s A way to look at it, that’s for sure. another way to look at it is that by publishing the cartoons, there will be riots/bombings and people will die (or at least that’s what happened in the past). no matter who is truly at fault, people are still dead. to walk around that reasoning is ridiculous.

    why you want to give terrorists more reason (even if the reason is rather unreasonable) to hate and kill, i don’t know.

    “Acquiescing to their demands in the face of threats and terrorist acts just encourages and emboldens them.”

    you know, i’m beginning to doubt the wisdom of this reasoning. in the face of such reasoning, we go and kill and bomb (with much more efficiency) and we take part in this cultural/religious conflict.

    you’re taking the same tough-guy pose they take and that’s why we’re at war. a little diplomacy and a little give and take would go a long way. but that can’t happen as we (and they) continue to kill. to continue down this path is just going to lead us into unending war without rules.

    “what should happen instead is the world (including peaceful Muslims) should join forces to hunt them down and put them on trial for war crimes.”

    you act as if this is even a possibility. this isn’t conventional war. there isn’t a conventional enemy. the rules have changed (actually they just completely left the building). what you want to happen will not and can not.

  • Clavos

    why you want to give terrorists more reason (even if the reason is rather unreasonable) to hate and kill, i don’t know.

    Because the alternative is to let them win.

    you act as if this is even a possibility. this isn’t conventional war. there isn’t a conventional enemy. the rules have changed (actually they just completely left the building). what you want to happen will not and can not.

    OK. Let them have their way then. Don’t publish the cartoons, or anything else they don’t want published or said, let them do whatever they want to, just as long as they don’t kill anybody if opposed.

    That’s plain fucking dumb, zing. You think that will satisfy them? You really think “a little give and take” is all they want?

    You really are naive, man.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “Because the alternative is to let them win.”

    no it isn’t. if they have no reason to hate and kill, it’s called peace. at least i assume that’s what we all want… and jesus christ, as long as it all ends in peace, i don’t give a fuck who wins or loses.

    “OK. Let them have their way then. Don’t publish the cartoons, or anything else they don’t want published or said, let them do whatever they want to, just as long as they don’t kill anybody if opposed.”

    you don’t need to publish them again. they’re published. permanently. on the internet. you can go find them very easily. i did today. is every second of the day that i’m not publishing the cartoons a victory for terrorism? no… is publishing the cartoons on glossy paper just to prove a point worth one single life? no.

    “That’s plain fucking dumb, zing. You think that will satisfy them? You really think “a little give and take” is all they want?”

    what is it that they want then? i think they’ll stop targeting us if we stop targeting them. simple enough. we’ve been the aggressor before. all over oil. our military is all over the middle east. you think we’d stand for it if they occupied our country? so why do you think we can occupy theirs without them attacking back? it’s mind-boggling.

    “You really are naive, man.”

    nah, i just don’t agree that we have to go pissing them off or they win, or we have to bomb the hell out of them and kill 100s of thousands of people or they win, or we have to destroy every last one of them or they win. if i’m naive, you’re a paranoid, warmongering, genocidal chickenhawk.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    i think they’ll stop targeting us if we stop targeting them. simple enough.

    It’s obvious you know nothing about the Wahhabi – and more important, you don’t want to know! So, I will not waste my time explaining at all. I would never wish such an evil upon you, but if some Wahhabi fanatic were to slit your throat, in your dying moments, you might begin to understand – not that it would do you any good.

    That makes far you worse than naïve. As I said, zing, you learned absolutely nothing from living in Brooklyn. What a waste of time on a young man who wants to learn nothing!

  • Clavos

    if they have no reason to hate and kill…

    zing, have you ever looked into what they teach in the Madrassas?

    It’s HOLY war, zing, it’s not over oil, or troops in the Middle East, it’s a movement to eradicate everyone who is not a believer!

    They are not pissed off at us because of what we do, we are “infidels,” we don’t toe the line on their BELIEFS. Their motivation transcends mere revenge, they are intent on eradicating us.

    The violence and killing in response to the cartoons doesn’t give you pause, zing? Would Catholics or Buddhists or Jews react that way to caricatures of their prophets?

    I don’t think so.

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “That makes far you worse than naïve. As I said, zing, you learned absolutely nothing from living in Brooklyn. What a waste of time on a young man who wants to learn nothing!”

    oh, shut the hell up, ruvy. just because i’m not all worried about the evils of the world in the way you are, and not one ounce of me is afraid of getting my throat slit means i’m probably more likely actually learning about stuff that’s actually useful rather than stock-piling weapons and hatred. i just don’t want to know what it’s like to be you. so i don’t find it a waste.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “It’s HOLY war, zing, it’s not over oil, or troops in the Middle East, it’s a movement to eradicate everyone who is not a believer!”

    ha. follow the money, you’ll find who wants you to believe that. you’ll find the people that want those who actually believe in that holy war to believe that as well. at the root of this is money and power, not anything holy.

    “They are not pissed off at us because of what we do, we are “infidels,” we don’t toe the line on their BELIEFS. Their motivation transcends mere revenge, they are intent on eradicating us.”

    great. so we have to eradicate them, eh? wow. who’s the bad guy here? you’re just as duped as they are.

    “The violence and killing in response to the cartoons doesn’t give you pause, zing? Would Catholics or Buddhists or Jews react that way to caricatures of their prophets?”

    no, but why should they when they can just invade and bomb the fuck out of arab countries. yay! we’re so GOOOOOD.

    you do realize that your attitude makes you the same as them, right? that attitude is going to do nothing but create continual war. it’s ridiculous and stupid.

    sigh. haven’t we all had this argument before? you’re not going to change my mind and make me think that killing is the answer here. and i also believe that this thing isn’t beyond hope.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Clavos,

    Don’t waste your hard earned wisdom or time on fools who refuse to pay attention to you. Those here who are willing to comprehend who and what the Wahhabi are, and just what kind of hateful trash they teach will learn and learn well – so long as they understand concomitantly that not ALL Muslims are Wahhabi, and not all Muslims are impressed with the hateful shit the Wahhabi teach.

    But some idiots will never learn, Clavos. They’ll continue to spout bullshit and spout bullshit – think of the guys who try to buy yachts off of you who can’t really afford them but whose egos are at least as big as the yachts they are looking at. No matter how low you set the price, they’ll try to knock you lower.

    It’s analogous, pal, analogous.

  • Clavos

    great. so we have to eradicate them, eh?

    The terrorists? Before they eradicate us? Unequivocally, YES.

    you do realize that your attitude makes you the same as them, right?

    You do realize that your attitude will make you dead, right?

  • zingzing

    clavos: “The terrorists? Before they eradicate us? Unequivocally, YES.”

    and what’s the best way to get rid of them? kill people willy-nilly until they’re all dead? oh wait, that’s what produces them… so there will always be more that way. what we need to get rid of is the reason why they exist. unfortunately, killing people won’t get us there. we need to get rid of TERRORISM.

    “You do realize that your attitude will make you dead, right?”

    unfortunately, i think it’s your attitude that will make me dead. my attitude might actually allow a whole lot of people to live (and that includes me). my attitude says you are just as much a problem as they are. your attitude just continues this shit.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, you do realize that the shit you spout is a large part of the reason why the wahhabi exist in the first place, right? and why they continue to hold such power and such sway over their followers.

    i’m not saying that terrorists aren’t a problem. i’m not saying they need to be dealt with. i’m just saying that your method (“kill them before they kill us”) will never resolve itself. you CAN’T kill them all because by killing one, you create another. what you suggest produces endless war, which is, i hope, not what you intend.

  • zingzing

    hrm. “i’m not saying they DON’T need to be dealt with.”

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    zingzing, [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].

    The Wahhabi existed long before my asshole spouted any shit (58 years ago), and long before I had an opinion on anything (53 years ago). They started to kill fellow Arabs in Nejd in the 1700’s and THEY EXIST IN POWER IN THE 1920’s BECAUSE AN AMERICAN ASSHOLE FROM CONNECTICUT NAMED PRESCOTT BUSH, THE LATE UNLAMENTED FATHER OF GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GAVE THEM MONEY TO CONQUER THE ARABIAN PENINSULA.

    Nothing I have said created the attitudes of the Wahhabi when they took over the ikhwán muslemí in the 1920’s. They had had those attitudes for over 200 years. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    BTW zing,

    If we have to nuke the Persians or the Arabs now, it’s because you American[s] [Edited] didn’t do it 2001, like you were supposed to.

    You Americans are a bunch of moralizing cowards who deserve the shit Obama is feeding you, and who deserve to be sold down the river and flushed down the toilet of history.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    And I stand by my comments #24 and #25 on this comment thread. It’s about time you fools in the States learned some home truths. I’m right, and I know I’m right, and you will all discover that, most of you to your discomfort and displeasure, in the not too distant future.

  • zingzing

    jesus, ruvy. you need to take some pills or something. some for your anger, some for your condescension, and some for your taking things far too literally. (and for the record, tis better to be drunk on beer than bloodlust. not that i’m drunk. do you know what time it is here?)

    of course, i didn’t mean YOU when i said “the shit you spout,” i meant the general attitude you have. you are (obviously) not powerful enough to in any way influence the creation of anything (beyond the shit you talk about).

    but the wahhabi you know today (or the reason why you object to them) is a direct result of the religious/political conflict you seek to continue. you don’t give a shit about them killing arabs three centuries ago. but you do give a shit about an american giving them money in the 1920s… ahhh, about the same time the british started dreaming up a new israeli state… but we do love to destabilize the region, don’t we? kept it up ever since!

    the wahhabi profit from hatred. the more you hate, the more the wahhabi’s followers hate, and the more power they have. you play right into their hands. just a spoke on the wheel.

  • zingzing

    “You Americans are a bunch of moralizing cowards who deserve the shit Obama is feeding you, and who deserve to be sold down the river and flushed down the toilet of history.”

    ha. go ahead and nuke the arabs. but know that you’re the one flushing yourself. (actually, don’t nuke the arabs. that’s sick.)

    and why in the hell were we supposed to nuke the arabs in 2001? why would we want to do that? i guess you don’t see how vastly stupid that is. do you ever think about consequences? beyond the general evil nature of killing innocent people, just think about what would happen to your economy. just think about how many more terrorists you would create. you’d only multiply your problems, and NO ONE would stand behind you (or actually, in front of you,) anymore.

    “I’m right, and I know I’m right, and you will all discover that, most of you to your discomfort and displeasure, in the not too distant future.”

    yeah, well, if you nuke the arabs, you’ll be both right and wrong at the same time. i don’t think you’re right at all. not that that’s going to change anything. you espouse genocide, which is disgusting, and if you think that’s “right…” well, i don’t know what to say. ridiculous.

  • zingzing

    that good enough for you?

    now you get to write your bloodthirsty garbage.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    On 12 September 2001, the solution was “nuke the bastards” – particularly the bastards in Riyadh. You didn’t do it, and now you are paying – paying but good.

    Good on you all. The Arabs should only kick shit in your faces like you deserve.

  • zingzing

    i, for one, am glad we didn’t nuke anyone. we shouldn’t be in iraq either. that’s where we differ, i guess.

    “The Arabs should only kick shit in your faces like you deserve.”

    do you deserve it too? i notice your country hasn’t bothered to drop any nukes either. and after 40+ years of arab shit kicked in the face. i wonder why that is. maybe because people more sane than you actually get to make those decisions, and they see the monumental stupidity and terrifying consequences of such an action.

    makes one pause.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “another way to look at it is that by publishing the cartoons, there will be riots/bombings and people will die (or at least that’s what happened in the past).”

    Not exactly. According to a description of the book on Amazon, the author concluded “that the Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not—as was commonly assumed—a spontaneous emotional reaction arising out of the clash of Western and Islamic civilizations. Rather it was orchestrated, first by those with vested interests in elections in Denmark and Egypt, and later by Islamic extremists seeking to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya, and Nigeria. Klausen shows how the cartoon crisis was, therefore, ultimately a political conflict rather than a colossal cultural misunderstanding.”

    Those people will always find an excuse to act out so you can either take a stand with the cartoons or you can keep appeasing them.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    zing,

    Until the Persians started hustling for nukes and threatening our very existence, there was no reason at all for Israel to use any nukes on her neighbors.

    There are reasons now.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • zingzing

    well, nukes are a pretty good deterrent. i’m pretty sure israel has a few aimed right at tehran. and iran probably has some aimed right at israel. you bomb them, they bomb you, all the other arab nations bomb you. pakistan and india get into it, russia goes nuts in eastern europe… woo. fun? you may think you have a reason to bomb iran, but i’m not sure you realize that that would be just the reason needed to actually wipe you off the map. i wouldn’t go about sealing my own doom so quickly.

  • Clavos

    Those people will always find an excuse to act out so you can either take a stand with the cartoons or you can keep appeasing them.

    Quoted for Truth.

  • zingzing

    well, i hope that muslims put an end to their not peeing in the holy water thing and finally stand up for something. it’s the same thing. the way i see it, you’re saying we have to constantly be shoving the cartoons in islam’s face, or else the terrorists win. it’s not enough that they are readily available for viewing from thousands of other sources.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    it’s not being plastered outside of mosques. it’s going into a book the vast majority of the world won’t even see and if they are too scared to publish it then, yes, the terrorists did win. If it’s available in thousands of places how does one more hurt?

  • zingzing

    “then, yes, the terrorists did win.”

    what are they going to do now?

    “If it’s available in thousands of places how does one more hurt?”

    it probably wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. but, like i said, on the off-chance that it did, and someone died, i wouldn’t want that hanging over me. i can see both sides of the argument. but i’m not in charge of the decision.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “what are they going to do now?”

    I don’t know. I stopped getting their newsletters

  • zingzing

    i wish they actually did have newsletters. their script is so beautiful. i don’t care if i can’t understand it.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    i wish they actually did have newsletters. their script is so beautiful. i don’t care if i can’t understand it.

    zing, you only need to understand the cartoon of the mullah slicing the “west’s” head off while he blabs on and on. The drawing may not be to your liking but the “west” is you.

    “Smarten up, Kolb!” [from the novel The ODESSA File]

  • zingzing

    “zing, you only need to understand the cartoon of the mullah slicing the “west’s” head off while he blabs on and on.”

    actually, in my world view, i need to know a lot more. to come to the conclusions you come to, all you need is the above cartoon. but i’d like to see the west and islam come to a mutual understanding with mutual respect. it’s not impossible, but it will be if we continue down the road we’re on now.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    So very many things we don’t understand seem beautiful. A coral snake, for example, is very pretty; if it bites you, death is nearly certain. Their most frequent victims are small children who don’t know they are very dangerous, think they are very pretty and pick them up. Something like a small finger is easily bitten.

    Draw whatever analogies you wish.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Jordan Richardson

    Kill all pretty snakes…just in case?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    i’d like to see the west and islam come to a mutual understanding with mutual respect. it’s not impossible, but it will be if we continue down the road we’re on now.

    There is NO chance of any agreement with the Wahhabi and anybody. The Wahhabi’s creed is simle – “my way or the chopping block”. That is why they must die.

    There is a prophesied reconciliation between the Children of Israel and the Children of Nevayot and Kedar [Isaiah 60:7] – the Children of Ishmael. Frankly, whether you and your ilk get included in this at all I do not know or care – but if Prophecy is to be believed (and I don’t care what a deluded person like you believes) the Wahhabi will die or repent of their ways – THEY are the real obstacle, the big obstacle, to any kind of peace in this region.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    actually, in my world view, i need to know a lot more.

    Alright zing. For you and all the idiots who think that negotiation with the Wahhabi or the Persians will get anything more than shit in your face, funerals and death: WATCH AND LEARN.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    I went to watch the video Ruvy linked to but had to give up watching it in less than two minutes after listening to the pleased with himself presenter trying to mock liberals and socialists – as if they were the same thing – as epitomised by Obama, as they preferred diplomacy to war, whilst managing to ignore the fact that the current US President is running two wars already.

    No one doubts that there is a militant strand of Islam that is prone to violence. However that was also true of Christianity not so very long ago and that passed. It seems to be a pattern in the evolution of these unproven deistic notions…

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “There is NO chance of any agreement with the Wahhabi and anybody. The Wahhabi’s creed is simle – “my way or the chopping block”. That is why they must die.”

    what’s simle? and that’s not a direct quote, i think. and yes, there’s no agreeing with the fringe. but there is making them obsolete. and that’s what we should do.

    kill them off? impossible. make them meaningless? bam.

    and stick your bible up your ass.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I have a general question for a lawyer (or even a non-lawyer who knows the answer). If you are around Dan(Miller) or if any other people think they know, I would appreciate feedback.

    Can a hotel discriminate based on age if one is an adult? My niece is in her 2nd year of college. She and her bf would like to go on a vacation as they both pretty much insanely work every minute they are not actually in school. They are both 19. Can a hotel say only 21 legally? What if it is not all-inclusive? Isn’t that age discrimination?