Comments on: Cartoon Karma http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:12:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Garland Greene http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2752 Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:01:30 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2752 My theory is that Malkina nd right wing bloggers are yelping about this to no end to distract us all from the real 1st amendment issue that we should be demanding resignations from several in the Bush administration: illegal wire tapping of citizens. I find it interesting that the Bush administration actually condemned the cartoons. At least they are consistent in their ideas that speech really is not free. My theory is that Malkina nd right wing bloggers are yelping about this to no end to distract us all from the real 1st amendment issue that we should be demanding resignations from several in the Bush administration: illegal wire tapping of citizens.

I find it interesting that the Bush administration actually condemned the cartoons. At least they are consistent in their ideas that speech really is not free.

]]> by: The Mahablog » Taking the Bait http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2700 Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:05:15 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2700 [...] What did I say about not taking bait? [...] […] What did I say about not taking bait? […]

]]> by: paradoctor http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2697 Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:15:47 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2697 Re the Bamiyan Buddhas: I seem to recall from around that time that some Tibetan Buddhists prayed for those demolishing the statues. How Buddhist, I thought; detached and compassionate. I hope one of you can confirm or deny this story. About the cartoons; I would grade the cartoons at a D+ at best, ditto with their publishers, and D- at best for the rioters. At best; for both, F beckons. According to Mark Twain, we in this country have three great blessings; freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the good sense not to use either. Re the Bamiyan Buddhas: I seem to recall from around that time that some Tibetan Buddhists prayed for those demolishing the statues. How Buddhist, I thought; detached and compassionate. I hope one of you can confirm or deny this story.

About the cartoons; I would grade the cartoons at a D+ at best, ditto with their publishers, and D- at best for the rioters. At best; for both, F beckons.

According to Mark Twain, we in this country have three great blessings; freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the good sense not to use either.

]]> by: Kathy http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2695 Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:00:19 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2695 As always, Barbara, your analysis is original, well-thought-out, and independent. You're not afraid to look at an event from a completely different perspective, and that's why I love your blog and your writing so much. Plus, I completely agree with what you say. :) As always, Barbara, your analysis is original, well-thought-out, and independent. You’re not afraid to look at an event from a completely different perspective, and that’s why I love your blog and your writing so much.

Plus, I completely agree with what you say. :)

]]> by: emel http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2693 Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:18:07 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2693 This is definitely a vicious circle and ridiculous. They are cartoons people. But that said, Now we live in a world where any group/person no matter how small, no matter where on the planet they are, can put their ridiculous stuff in the public view and watch while millions chase tails over it. If we go down this road, tail chasing burning and killing will be the only activity left among mankind. In a world as wired together as we now are, we are going to have to collectively learn to chill and not crap pants over every single thing every single human does and puts into the public sphere. This is definitely a vicious circle and ridiculous. They are cartoons people.
But that said, Now we live in a world where any group/person no matter how small, no matter where on the planet they are, can put their ridiculous stuff in the public view and watch while millions chase tails over it. If we go down this road, tail chasing burning and killing will be the only activity left among mankind. In a world as wired together as we now are, we are going to have to collectively learn to chill and not crap pants over every single thing every single human does and puts into the public sphere.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2692 Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:59:46 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2692 <i>As a Buddhist, I certainly found the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas at Bamiyan offensive.</i> And then if you're a practicing Buddhist you remind yourself -- no attachments! :-) I don't remember any Buddhist leaders saying all that much about the Bamiyan Buddhas, although maybe they did and I missed it. The correct dharma response was not to get pissed but to reflect on the First Noble Truth. So there wasn't much of a reaction. No riots, though. But then as soon as you start to think you are superior because you didn't riot ... oops! Back of the line for you, boyo! One trap after another. ... Shunyata! In all the ten directions, just This. As a Buddhist, I certainly found the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas at Bamiyan offensive.

And then if you’re a practicing Buddhist you remind yourself — no attachments! :-)

I don’t remember any Buddhist leaders saying all that much about the Bamiyan Buddhas, although maybe they did and I missed it. The correct dharma response was not to get pissed but to reflect on the First Noble Truth. So there wasn’t much of a reaction. No riots, though.

But then as soon as you start to think you are superior because you didn’t riot … oops! Back of the line for you, boyo! One trap after another. …

Shunyata! In all the ten directions, just This.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2691 Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:51:07 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2691 <i>I would argue they published the pictures for two reasons: because grown ups have a right to the look at what the story was all about. And as an act of solidarity to a newspaper (however right wing the paper may, or may not be) under attack.</i> Let's put it in a different context. Let's say a newspaper published something that was racist, and the NAACP objected. Let's take it further and say some black persons were observed committing acts of vandalism to protest the publication of racist material. You are the editor of a different newspaper. Do you (a) write an editorial condemning both the racist material and the vandalism; or (b) publish the material, because some black thugs ain't gonna tell you what to publish? If you go with (a), are you <i>really</i> violating the spirit of the First Amendment, or are you upholding the spirit of tolerance and diversity? If you go with (b), are you not taking sides with the racists? Now, you might go with (c), which is publish the material so that people can see what the controversy is about, but with a bunch of disclaimers to let your readers know that you don't agree with the material. I remember debating this very point in class 30+ years ago when I was a journalism student. I think in making your decision you'd weigh the actual news value of the material against how much it's going to piss off the advertisers and subscribers. Editors make such decisions all the time, and it's not considered censorship. It's considered exercising editorial judgment. Finally, there's (d), which is to describe or paraphrase the mateiral to show your readers why it's controversial without actually reproducing the material. If you combine (a) and (d) you'd be making the same judgment most of the nation's newspapers are making. I would argue they published the pictures for two reasons: because grown ups have a right to the look at what the story was all about. And as an act of solidarity to a newspaper (however right wing the paper may, or may not be) under attack.

Let’s put it in a different context. Let’s say a newspaper published something that was racist, and the NAACP objected. Let’s take it further and say some black persons were observed committing acts of vandalism to protest the publication of racist material. You are the editor of a different newspaper. Do you (a) write an editorial condemning both the racist material and the vandalism; or (b) publish the material, because some black thugs ain’t gonna tell you what to publish?

If you go with (a), are you really violating the spirit of the First Amendment, or are you upholding the spirit of tolerance and diversity? If you go with (b), are you not taking sides with the racists?

Now, you might go with (c), which is publish the material so that people can see what the controversy is about, but with a bunch of disclaimers to let your readers know that you don’t agree with the material. I remember debating this very point in class 30+ years ago when I was a journalism student. I think in making your decision you’d weigh the actual news value of the material against how much it’s going to piss off the advertisers and subscribers. Editors make such decisions all the time, and it’s not considered censorship. It’s considered exercising editorial judgment.

Finally, there’s (d), which is to describe or paraphrase the mateiral to show your readers why it’s controversial without actually reproducing the material. If you combine (a) and (d) you’d be making the same judgment most of the nation’s newspapers are making.

]]> by: No Blood for Hubris http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2690 Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:33:05 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2690 Being angry to the point of threatening to kill others or actually killing others because one finds something offensive to one's belief system is ridiculous, whether it's angry Muslim mobs or angry mobs of Michelle Malkinists. As a Buddhist, I certainly found the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas at Bamiyan offensive. And yet, a Zennier response seemed, to me superior, as in: "If you see Buddha on the road, kill him." Being angry to the point of threatening to kill others or actually killing others because one finds something offensive to one’s belief system is ridiculous, whether it’s angry Muslim mobs or angry mobs of Michelle Malkinists.

As a Buddhist, I certainly found the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas at Bamiyan offensive. And yet, a Zennier response seemed, to me superior, as in: “If you see Buddha on the road, kill him.”

]]> by: jonst http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2689 Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:10:41 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2689 I would argue they published the pictures for two reasons: because grown ups have a right to the look at what the story was all about. And as an act of solidarity to a newspaper (however right wing the paper may, or may not be) under attack. Its more than a lot people did for Rushdie and for Van Gough when they were under siege. I would be really angry if I could not get my hands on translations of OBL's video or tapes. The media here makes the patronizing decision that I should not read them. That’s nonsense. I have a stake in the story. I want all the facts. Same here. .....I want to see the cartoons in question. It’s silly to be told you can't see them because it would offend someone if you did. I see the spirit of the 1st, and its placement, 1st, within the bill of rights, as putting a bet, if you will, down on free expression. Its not simply, or exclusively, that govt does not have a right to restrict speech or the written (or drawn) word. It most certainly does not. But the 1st is more than that...I would argue. Its encouraging free expression. Its saying, again I would argue, this is what we think works to advance society and freedom. It is this spirit that the rioters are attacking. And ok, from their perspective they can respond "we did not sign on to 1st amendment. Text or spirit. You have your values we have ours." Ok...ok, I understand that. But I still take the position I take. I would argue they published the pictures for two reasons: because grown ups have a right to the look at what the story was all about. And as an act of solidarity to a newspaper (however right wing the paper may, or may not be) under attack. Its more than a lot people did for Rushdie and for Van Gough when they were under siege.

I would be really angry if I could not get my hands on translations of OBL’s video or tapes. The media here makes the patronizing decision that I should not read them. That’s nonsense. I have a stake in the story. I want all the facts. Same here. …..I want to see the cartoons in question. It’s silly to be told you can’t see them because it would offend someone if you did.

I see the spirit of the 1st, and its placement, 1st, within the bill of rights, as putting a bet, if you will, down on free expression. Its not simply, or exclusively, that govt does not have a right to restrict speech or the written (or drawn) word. It most certainly does not. But the 1st is more than that…I would argue. Its encouraging free expression. Its saying, again I would argue, this is what we think works to advance society and freedom. It is this spirit that the rioters are attacking. And ok, from their perspective they can respond “we did not sign on to 1st amendment. Text or spirit. You have your values we have ours.” Ok…ok, I understand that. But I still take the position I take.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2688 Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:05:23 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/05/cartoon-karma/#comment-2688 <i>My point is that it is a challenge to the philosophy that I believe gave rise to the 1st. Its a challenge to the spirit of the 1st, if you will.</i> Not really. It would have been such a challenge if the material were something the newspapers would have published except for the riots. But they weren't. Publishing them because of the riots is just allowing yourself to be baited. <i>Its, in a manner of speaking, Skokie Illinois all over again.</i> Well, not in this country, it isn't. I doubt there would be Muslim riots in the U.S. even if the cartoons were published in newspapers. I could be wrong, of course. My point is that it is a challenge to the philosophy that I believe gave rise to the 1st. Its a challenge to the spirit of the 1st, if you will.

Not really. It would have been such a challenge if the material were something the newspapers would have published except for the riots. But they weren’t. Publishing them because of the riots is just allowing yourself to be baited.

Its, in a manner of speaking, Skokie Illinois all over again.

Well, not in this country, it isn’t. I doubt there would be Muslim riots in the U.S. even if the cartoons were published in newspapers. I could be wrong, of course.

]]>