But what about the Muslims?

More at www.karuska.com

Oxymoron...

Site popular with citizens, officers

By Amos Maki (Contact), Memphis Commercial Appeal
Tuesday, July 22, 2008

I'm not sure there is a definable answer, but I'm pretty sure that along with the right to freedom of speech comes the responsibility to use some discretion in wielding it.  Of course, everyone has a right to their opinion. What you don't have is a right to force it on everyone else. As defined by several  legal rulings, you do not have a right to interrupt a council meeting with your opinion. You do not have a right to invade anther's private property with your opinion. You do not have a right to slander others, or maybe it's libel? I wonder if blog posts qualify as printed material or electronic communication?

It seems to me that what we're witnessing today is the result of the "me first" generation. We've raised an entire generation that believes they are the center of the universe.  Only their opinion counts. If you disagree with their stated opinion they can call you any number of nasty names with total impunity. They are the only ones that count in their tiny worlds. There is no room for others opinions and points of view. The fact that they frequently cause great distress to families in crisis is excused in their own minds under the banner of "freedom of speech".  Because they lack basic human empathy, they are either unaware or uncaring of the hurt they cause with careless remarks and endless  wild speculation. As long as the writers are amused, that's all that matters and it's a great day in the blogosphere.

Where is the line between basic human decency and your right to freedom of speech?  With anonymous postings, there are no consequences for your actions. No careful thought about how to get your point across in the best way.  No healthy arguments backed by research. Someone doesn't agree with you? Call them a retard and move on to your next victim. Obviously, everyone that doesn't agree with you is a moron. In your world there is only room for one opinion. After all, no one knows who's really writing the post, so you can say what you want.

What is so damaging about this "only me" attitude is the closed minds that accompany the attitude. Missed opportunities for learning something new and expanding your library of knowledge. See a statement that you just can't believe? Hey, I've got an idea! Do a little research of your own and see if it's true or false. And a warning. I know it's hard for some to believe, but everything you read on the Internet isn't true. In fact a lot of it is just other peoples opinions. Just like this blog.

Freedom of Speech or Human Decency? I'm probably one of the most opinionated people I know, and I think I have the responsibility to keep some opinions to myself. My Mother raised me better.

by Paul Craig Roberts

"On October 21 (1948) the Government of Israel took a decision that was to have a lasting and divisive effect on the rights and status of those Arabs who lived within its borders: the official establishment of military government in the areas where most of the inhabitants were Arabs."
- Martin Gilbert, Israel: A History

I had given up on finding an American with a moral conscience and the courage to go with it and was on the verge of retiring my keyboard when I met the Rev. Thomas L. Are.

Rev. Are is a Presbyterian pastor who used to tell his Atlanta, Georgia, congregation: "I am a Zionist." Like most Americans, Rev. Are had been seduced by Israeli propaganda and helped to spread the propaganda among his congregation.

Around 1990 Rev. Are had an awakening for which he credits the Christian Canon of St. George's Cathedral in Jerusalem and author Marc Ellis, co-editor of the book, Beyond Occupation.

Realizing that his ignorance of the situation on the ground had made him complicit in great crimes, Rev. Are wrote a book hoping to save others from his mistake and perhaps in part to make amends, Israeli Peace/Palestinian Justice, published in Canada in 1994.

Rev. Are researched his subject and wrote a brave book. Keep in mind that 1994 was long prior to Walt and Mearsheimer's recent book, which exposed the power of the Israel Lobby and its ability to control the explanation Americans receive about the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Rev. Are begins with an account of Israel's opening attack on the Palestinians, an event which took place before most Americans alive today were born. He quotes the distinguished British historian, Arnold J. Toynbee: "The treatment of the Palestinian Arabs in 1947 (and 1948) was as morally indefensible as the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis. Though nor comparable in quantity to the crimes of the Nazis, it was comparable in quality."

Golda Meir, considered by Israelis as a great leader and by others as one of history's great killers, disputed the facts: "It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist."

Golda Meir's apology for Israel's great crimes is so counter-factual that it blows the mind. Palestinian refugee camps still exist outside Palestine filled with Palestinians and their descendants whose towns, villages, homes and lands were seized by the Israelis in 1948. Rev. Are provides the reader with Na'im Ateek's description of what happened to him, an 11-year old, when the Jews came to take Beisan on May 12, 1948. Entire Palestinian communities simply disappeared.

In 1949 the United Nations counted 711,000 Palestinian refugees.

In 2005 the United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimated 4.25 million Palestinians and their descendants were refugees from their homeland.

The Israeli policy of evicting non-Jews has continued for six decades. On June 19, 2008, the Laity Committee in the Holy Land reported in Window Into Palestine that the Israeli Ministry of Interior is taking away the residency rights of Jerusalem Christians who have been reclassified as "visitors in their own city."

On December 10, 2007, MK Ephraim Sneh boasted in the Jerusalem Post that Israel had achieved "a true Zionist victory" over the UN partition plan "which sought to establish two nations in the land of Israel." The partition plan had assigned Israel 56 percent of Palestine, leaving the inhabitants with only 44 percent. But Israel had altered this over time. Sneh proudly declared: "When we complete the permanent agreement, we will hold 78 percent of the land while the Palestinians will control 22 percent."

Sneb could have added that the 22 percent is essentially a collection of unconnected ghettos cut off from one another and from roads, water, medical care, and jobs.

Rev. Are documents that the abuse of Palestinians' human rights is official Israeli policy. Killings, torture, and beatings are routine. On May 17, 1990, the Washington Post reported that Save the Children "documented indiscriminate beating, tear-gassing and shooting of children at home or just outside the house playing in the street, who were sitting in the classroom or going to the store for groceries."

On January 19, 1988, Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, later Prime Minister, announced the policy of "punitive beating" of Palestinians. The Israelis described the purpose of punitive beating: "Our task is to recreate a barrier and once again put the fear of death into the Arabs of the area."

According to Save the Children, beatings of children and women are common. Rev. Are, citing the report in the Washington Post, writes: "Save the Children concluded that one-third of beaten children were under ten years old, and one-fifth under the age of five. Nearly a third of the children beaten suffered broken bones."

On February 8, 1988, Newsweek magazine quoted an Israeli soldier: "We got orders to knock on every door, enter and take out all the males. The younger ones we lined up with their faces against the wall, and soldiers beat them with billy clubs. This was no private initiative, these were orders from our company commander.... After one soldier finished beating a detainee, another soldier called him 'you Nazi,' and the first man shot back: 'You bleeding heart.' When one soldier tried to stop another from beating an Arab for no reason, a fist fight broke out."

These were the old days before conscience was eliminated from the ranks of the Israeli military.

In the London Sunday Times, June 19, 1977, Ralph Schoenman, executive director of the Bertrand Russell Foundation, wrote: "Israeli interrogators routinely ill-treat and torture Arab prisoners. Prisoners are hooded or blindfolded and are hung by their wrists for long periods. Most are struck in the genitals or in other ways sexually abused. Most are sexually assaulted. Others are administered electric shock."

Amnesty International concluded that "there is no country in the world in which the use of official and sustained torture is as well established and documented as in the case of Israel."

Even the pro-Israeli Washington Post reported: "Upon arrest, a detainee undergoes a period of starvation, deprivation of sleep by organized methods and prolonged periods during which the prisoner is made to stand with his hands cuffed and raised, a filthy sack covering the head. Prisoners are dragged on the ground, beaten with objects, kicked, stripped and placed under ice-cold showers."

Sounds like Abu Gharib. There are news reports that Israeli torture experts participated in the torture of the detainees assembled by the American military as part of the Bush Regime's propaganda onslaught to convince Americans that Iraq was overflowing with al-Qaeda terrorists. On July 23, 2008, Antiwar.com posted an Iraqi news report that the Iraqi government had released a total of 109,087 Iraqis that the Americans had "detained." Obviously, these "terrorist detainees" had been used for the needs of Bush Regime propaganda. No one will ever know how many of them were abused by Israeli torturers imported by the CIA.

Rev. Are's book makes sensible suggestions for resolving the conflict that Israel began. However, the problem is that Israeli governments believe only in force. The policy of the Israeli government has always been to beat, kill, and brutalize Palestinians into submission and flight. Anyone who doubts this can read the book of Israel's finest historian Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006).

Americans are a gullible and naive people. They have been complicit for 60 years in crimes that in Arnold Toynbee's words "are comparable in quality" to the crimes of Nazi Germany. As Toynbee was writing decades ago, the accumulated Israeli crimes might now be comparable also in quantity.

The US routinely vetoes United Nations condemnations of Israel for its brutal crimes against the Palestinians. Insouciant American taxpayers have been bled for a half century to provide the Israelis with superior military weapons with which Israelis assault their neighbors, all the while convincing America – essentially a captive nation – that Israel is the victim.

John F. Mahoney wrote: "Thomas Are reminds me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: an active pastor who comes to the unsettling realization that he and his people have been fed a terrible lie that is killing and torturing thousands of innocent men, women and children. Not without ample research and prayer does such a pastor, in turn, risk unsettling his congregation. The Reverend Are has done his homework and, I suspect, has prayed often and long during the writing of this courageous book."

Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran theologian and pastor who was executed for his active participation in the German Resistance against Nazism.

Professor Benjamin M. Weir, San Francisco Theological Seminary, wrote: "This book will make the reader squirm. It asks you to lend your voice in behalf of the voiceless."

Americans who can no longer think for themselves and who are terrified of disapproval by their peer group are incapable of lending their voices to anyone except those who control the world of propaganda in which they live.

The ignorance and unconcern of Americans is a great frustration to my friends in the Israeli peace movement. Without outside support those Israelis who believe in good will are deprived, by America's support for their government's policy of violence, of any peaceful resolution of a conflict began in 1947 by Israeli aggression against unsuspecting Palestinian villages.

Rev. Are wrote his book with the hope that the pen is mightier than the sword and that facts can crowd out propaganda and create a framework for a just resolution of the Palestinian issue. In his concluding chapter, "What Christians Can Do," Rev. Are writes: "We cannot allow others to dictate our thinking on any subject, especially on anything as important as Christian faithfulness, which is tested by an attitude towards seeking justice for the oppressed. It's a Christian's duty to know."

Duty, of course, has costs. Rev. Are writes: "Speak up for the Palestinians and you will make enemies. Yet, as Christians, we must be willing to raise issues that until now we have chosen to dodge."

More than a decade later, President Jimmy Carter, a true friend of Israel, tried again to awaken Americans' moral conscience with his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Carter was instantly demonized by the Israel Lobby.

Sixty years of efforts by good and humane people to hold Israel accountable have so far failed, but they are more important today than ever before. Israel has its captive American nation on the verge of attacking Iran, the consequences of which could be catastrophic for all concerned. The alleged purpose of the attack is to eliminate nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons. The real reason is to eliminate all support for Hamas and Hezbollah so that Israel can seize the entire West Bank and southern Lebanon. The Bush regime is eager to do Israel's bidding, and the media and evangelical "Christian" churches have been preparing the American people for the event.

It is paradoxical that Israel is demonstrating that veracity lies not in the Christian belief in good will but in Lenin's doctrine that violence is the effective force in history and that the evangelical Christian Zionist churches agree.

source

A bad week for alternative medicine -On Monday, Radovan Karadzic was revealed to be working as a healer. On Tuesday, we learned that a woman suffered brain damage after a detox. Rose Shapiro explains how to spot a quack. Another excellent guide to basic skeptical advice.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, why are you the greatest lier of them all? -Researchers find that mirrors have profound effects on our psychology.

Crackergate is officially over! -For those who haven't been following the epic saga that's been Crackergate, it all began with Webster Cook took the Eucharist, an object so sacred to Catholics they call it the Body of Christ, "hostage". Many Catholics responded by calling the incident a "hate crime." Bill Donohue of The Catholic League was outraged. To put this in perspective, this is the same guy who was outraged last year over a chocolate Jesus sculpture and Kathy Griffins' Emmy Awards acceptance speech (Her response to Donohue)and who who's been outraged in past with: the film Dogma, the underrated ABC series Nothing Sacred, singer Joan Osborne for the song "One of Us," The Golden Compass, South Park for the Cartoon Wars episode, and many, many others.

ANYWAY! This overreaction to the taking of the communion wafer, led science blogger PZ Myers to write  this blog here where he promised to get his hands on one and desecrate it. Then surprise, surprise, Donohue was pissed. Are you following me so far. Good. So PZ fired back at Donohue and his drones who have been flooding him mailbox with hate mail and death threats,

which led to sender being fired. But then came the twist. A confession revealed 1-800 Flowers had fingered the wrong person. Then somehow PZ was considered a danger to Republican security. Hate mail continued to pour in, pleading for PZ to spare the defenseless cracker and to desecrate the Koran instead. And that pretty much brings us to the present story, posted above. The cracker has been desecrated, the job is done, and the world continues to revolve around the sun. And this is go down as one of the stupidest chapters in human history.

Michael Shermer’s latest article in Scientific American -How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results.

DROP THAT CELL PHONE NOW! or don't. It doesn't matter. -This whole cell phones causing radiation hypothesis is getting old. I remain totally underwhelmed by the evidence. I'll try using my cell phone extra often to  express my disgust with this silly fearmongering.

And now for some science news:

Largest Sample Of Very Distant Galaxies Ever -"New Hubble Space Telescope observations of six spectacular galaxy clusters acting as gravitational lenses have given significant insights into the early stages of the Universe. Scientists have found the largest sample of very distant galaxies seen to date: ten promising candidates thought to lie at a distance of 13 billion light-years (~redshift 7.5)." Hear that Young Earth Creationists? 13 BILLION LIGHT-YEARS!

Dinosaur Super-tree Shows Slow Evolution At End -"An international study, led by the University of Bristol, shows that during their last 50 million years of existence, dinosaurs were not expanding as actively as had been previously thought and that the apparent explosion of dinosaur diversity may be largely explained by sampling bias."

Reporters Without Borders deplores the way the police in Chengdu (in the central province of Sichuan) have been treating human rights activist Huang Qi since his arrest on 10 July for “illegal possession of state secrets,” a charge that carries a possible three-year prison sentence. The police have been refusing him his right to be visited by his lawyer.

“By preventing Huang from seeing his lawyer, the Chinese authorities are yet again demonstrating that nothing has changed in China as regards free expression,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Huang is the 49th cyber-dissident to be imprisoned in China for trying to promote democracy and freedom of expression online. We urge the authorities to free him pending his trial.”

The Chengdu police told his family on 10 July that the results of their investigation had already been passed to the prosecutor’s office, which now has three months to take a decision.

Huang’s wife, Zeng Li, told Reporters Without Borders: “I am very upset about my husband and I do not understand what is pushing the authorities to bring this charge against him. All Huang did was report what things were like for the victims after the Sichuan earthquake.”

Huang’s lawyer, Mo Shaoping, contacted the Chengdu police on 18 July to request his right to visit, but it was refused. Mo said formal notification of Huang’s arrest had been provided to his mother earlier on 18 July but the notification was not clear.

Every since the 12 May earthquake in Sichuan, the 44-year-old Huang had been posting articles on his website, 64Tianwang, criticising the way the relief was being organised.

He wrote on 20 May: “The reports we are seeing are biased. In reality, it is very difficult for NGOs to deliver food aid. They are obliged to go through government channels. The government is using its propaganda to portray itself as a saviour to little avail. Few citizens trust the government because of the corruptions scandals that already occurred during similar disasters in the past.”

Huang originally created his website, www.64tianwang.com, as bulletin board for messages about missing persons. Reporters Without Borders awarded him its Cyber-Freedom Prize in 2004 for his online defence of free expression and human rights. A petition for his release has circulated in Chengdu and other regions hit by the earthquake.

Huang spent five years in Nanchong high security prison (in the northeast of Sichuan province) after being arrested on 3 June 2000, the eve of the 11th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. He was charged with subversion under articles 103 and 105 of the criminal code for posting articles about the massacre by exiled dissidents on his website.

He has serious health problems as a result the violence he underwent during his first spell in prison, when the authorities refused to provide him with appropriate treatment.

Copy of the indictment of Huang that was issued by the Chengdu police at 3 p.m. (Beijing time) on 18 July

- Reporters Without Borders: Cyber-dissident accused of illegal possession of state secrets is denied right to see lawyer

Reporters Without Borders condemns the arrest of leading cyber-dissident Du Daobin yesterday in the city of Yingcheng, in the central province of Hubei, for allegedly violating the terms of his probation by posting more than 100 articles on overseas websites, leaving the city, and receiving guests without notifying the authorities.

In a search of his home, police confiscated computer and letters that were sent to him while he was imprisoned from October 2003 to June 2004. He was released into house arrest on 11 June 2004, when a court convicted him of inciting subversion of the state and sentenced him to three years in prison and four years of house arrest.

“Du was living under a permanent threat,” Reporters Without Borders said. “He could have been imprisoned at any time under the sentence he received more than four years ago. He is the third leading cyber-dissident to be imprisoned in the run-up to the Olympic Games, after Hu Jia and Huang Qi.”

The press freedom organisation added: “The Chinese authorities fear the influence of these Internet users and find it increasingly difficult to rein them in. We call for Du’s release and the withdrawal of the charges against him.”

Aged 43, Du posted many articles online calling for more democracy and freedom of expression in China. Prior to his arrest in October 2003, he posts also called for the release of Liu Di, a young student who was imprisoned for posting messages on online forums advocating democracy in China. She was released on 28 November 2003 after more than a year in prison without being tried.

- Original report from Reporters Without Borders: Cyber-dissident Du Daobin finally falls victim to permanent threat of reimprisonment

Directed by Sal Romeo; Produced by Larry Minion will take place starting August 2nd through September 7, 2008 on Saturday & Sundays at 8pm.

Comedy central's "South Park" Eliza Jane Schneider brings you the uncensored voices of over 30 Americans in the true story of her 317,000 mile journey throughout America in an ambulance.

Sidewalk Studio Theater

4150 Riverside Drive

Burbank, CA 91505

For Reservation and Information, call 818-754-4264

www.elizajane.com/freedom.html

Susology , in their recent free mag, have an article about the underground hip hop & party scene in Tehran. Persian hip hop is known as rap-e-Fars and it's most well known proponent is Hichkas (aka Soroush Lashkari).

As their music is essentially protest music against the oppressive leaders of Iranian society the artists rely entriely on the internet & an underground network of parties, held in people's apartments. Here they get to meet the opposite sex, drink alcohol, dance, wear the latest fashions and rally against the state.

This, believe it or not is all very dangerous as the Revolutionary Guards regularly patrol neighbourhoods and enter apartments at will looking to drag away any one who denigrates Islam & the regime.

Check out these sites; www.parshiphop.com

www.zirzamin.se

And hear Hichkas here (in Farsi).

[link] "Vanity Fair Covers The New Yorker" at Vanity Fair

Freeway - "A to B"

Ok, this guy is going hard. Most of the time when an artist puts out this much material, half of it is garbage. Free has been really getting it in lately and it's all quality stuff. I'm loving it. Then again, what else would you expect from Free? He never really disappoints.

Lurking in the gloom of the Democrat agenda is a resuscitation of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which would allow the federal government, at the behest of liberal special interests, to selectively harass and intimidate radio stations whose broadcasting format it finds objectionable. Thus, the proliferation of conservative talk-radio and virtually all of the alternative media would be threatened with eventual extinction.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is unquestionably moving in such a direction once again. In only the past few weeks, she has castigated what she terms “right wing hate-radio,” while refusing to allow even for Congressional floor debate on a measure that would ensure political discourse on the radio, like all other forms of public dialogue, is protected from the specter of government regulation.

Even the most superficial understanding and regard for the critical importance of free speech and expression should generate nearly universal opposition to the “Fairness” Doctrine from across the political spectrum. After all, if the rights of any segment of society can be abridged, the rights of all others are threatened. And the contentious battle that ensued among the two major Democrats camps this past spring ought to convince both sides of their vital need to have a say if they are to have any hopes for a political future.

Nevertheless, forces are at work within the liberal political establishment, striving to achieve nothing less than a repeal of free speech, at the discretion of those in power. To understand just how tenuous is the current status of the First Amendment, consider the recent close call concerning the Second Amendment.

Admittedly, for the moment at least, the Supreme Court has conceded that it will uphold the Constitution and its guarantee of the inherent rights of the citizens to own and bear arms in its recent “District of Columbia v. Heller” decision. But while Americans can be somewhat reassured that no immediate federal plans are in the works to confiscate their guns, the decision to abide by the clear language of the Second Amendment, at five to four in favor, was hardly reflective of a general respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In essence, four of the nine Supreme Court “Justices” are comfortable with the concept of simply ignoring the clear language of constitutional law, and substituting their own perceptions and ideologies in its place. Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent, even went so far as to substantiate his arrogant attempt to seize power by scoffing at the notion that the Founders intended for the citizenry be able to defend itself and its rights.

Stevens unabashedly expressed his derision at the possibility that the framers of the Constitution would have made “a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons,” which any honest historian knows is exactly what they did. To offer such a disparaging commentary on the past two hundred years of freedom enjoyed by Americans, Stevens must perceive governmental power as the sole asset of the state.

In Stevens’ world, along with David Souter and Clinton appointees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg, the power of the government does not derive from the consent of the governed (as stated in the Declaration of Independence). Rather, it is imposed upon the people from on high, at the pleasure of those possessing the wisdom, skill, and muscle to dispense it. Moreover, by this and other recent opinions handed down from the High Court, Stevens clearly considers his own office as proof of membership in the “ruling class.”

If a one-vote majority is all that currently separates a traditionally free America from a future in which its Second Amendment right of self-defense can be seized under some pretense of the “greater good,” is it beyond the realm of possibility that the First Amendment right to protest such an abysmal situation would remain unthreatened? If, as Stevens and the other dissenting Justices have indicated, the ultimate right to bear arms belongs only to those in high office, is it also their opinion that the determination over who can speak freely is the sole propriety of the state?

Clearly, the balance of power at inner circles of the Federal Government teeters between those who respect the constitutionally instituted boundaries and limitations on government necessary for a free society, and those who regard such boundaries and limitations as an ongoing nuisance that must eventually be eradicated.

During the past few decades, the liberal juggernaut that had once seemed destined to thoroughly dominate the future of the nation has been regularly thwarted by grassroots activism, itself inspired and motivated by loud voices of conservatism in the alternative media. An open discussion between “left” and “right” has all too often resulted in the derailing of grandiose liberal plans to reinvent America. And the left simply cannot abide an indefinite continuation of that situation.

So, among those who presume the governing of the “peasantry” to be their inherent right, and any accountability as merely a needless annoyance (as was inarguably the case with the dissenting Justices in D.C. v. Heller), efforts to encroach on all the other precepts of the Bill of Rights hinge on the government’s success in neutralizing and thus abolishing the First Amendment. Eliminate the ability of the general public to speak freely, and those in command can eventually negate any passage of the Constitution that they find problematic.

Americans beware of the innocuous sounding term of “Fairness” in this looming Pandora’s box. For any concept of “fairness” to be substantiated, some individual or cabal must hold sufficient power to arbitrate over which speech is deemed “fair” and permissible, and which speech is not. And those on the political left would gladly assume such control over the rest of society with no intention of ever letting it go.

Stiff Right Jab contributing editor, Christopher G. Adamo, is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Spread the Word!

...and my 'impression' of it:

Yes, it is not a 'perfect' copy, the colours are brighter (on purpose), the shapes are not the same - but this is simply my 'impression' of the 'promise of bright freedom' - only as an illusion, a projection on the wall of this dank, gray, cave of a dungeon... please put it down to 'artistic licence'!

Well, the funny thing is...the day before I wrote about the death-threat Mr. Levant had received, and the day of the benefit for a comic who is being dragged in front of the thought police for sayin 'unfunny jokes', my young son had drawn a series of cartoons, capturing an innocent 9-year-old's perceptions of our struggle for the freedom of speech! 

(Yes, the seating positions of Ezra and the Inquisitor (or, is it Inqisitrix?) are mirrored in the comic....please excuse that detail - but note that it has been carried throughout the comic strip.  Also, note the beautifully-rendered, iconographic painting on the wall, which clearly identifies the setting!)

[caption id="attachment_202" align="aligncenter" width="231" caption="Ezra Levant is being 'told off' by the HRC Inquisitor"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_188" align="aligncenter" width="232" caption="As Ezra frees himself, the hammer rebounds,  crashes through the wall behind the Inquisitor..."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_209" align="aligncenter" width="232" caption="...mid-air collision between Ezra and the Inquisitor..."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_204" align="aligncenter" width="231" caption="....the rough landing, as the neighbour grasps the hammer..."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_205" align="aligncenter" width="234" caption="The angry neighbour throwns the hammer back, clever Ezra ducks!"][/caption]

And the moral of the story?

If you bring the hammer down on someone who does not deserve it, it might just rebound onto you!

For those of you who don't know, Michael Savage, a conservative radio talk-show host, recently made a series of somewhat incendiary remarks regarding children with autism last Wednesday. Accusing medical professionals and Big Pharma of creating what he called a "national panic" and over-diagnosing autism or autism spectrum disorders, Savage went on to say:

What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, you idiot.'

Yeah. That's all that people like Daniel Tammet or people like this guy on a British public service announcement about autism needed: a daddy with a big mouth on him. I guess that must be the big secret that doctors and pharmaceutical companies and Rain Man are keeping from us all -- good ole-fashioned parental discipline just like Back Then when they didn't have autism. All I want to know is this: If that's all it takes to cure autism, why the heck isn't Jim Carrey stepping up to the plate and giving Jenny McCarthy's kid a good man-swat in the ass?

According to Perez Hilton, whom I treasure because he soils himself with celebrity culture so the rest of us only have to read the digested version -- really, I think of him as the shabbes goy of celebrity journalism -- Michael Savage is experiencing an immediate and (dare I call it "savage"?) backlash from people who tend to think that autism might be a mite more tough to cure than by calling someone an idiot. Specifically, a seven-station network in Mississippi is dropping Savage Nation, Michael Savage's radio show, and he's losing the endorsement of AFLAC, an insurance company.

Good. Actually, I think Savage should experience much more retribution, but losing seven stations and AFLAC is a decent start.

Now, what I should always avoid doing when I go to Perez is looking at the comments, but they have the irresistible pull of an intellectual vacuum there so huge it qualifies as a quantum celeblog singularity, what with people basically posting that they're "first" (Who cares?) or that Perez is fat (Uhhh...so?) or that they still want Hillary to win (HAHAHA!). However, some of the comments there were just so far beyond the pale that I had to respond somehow, somewhere.

How 'bout here?

"Jo" had a comment that was fairly representative:

Just because Savage said something that is shocking doesn't mean he should be censored and taken off the air in specific markets. That is censorship plain and simple.
That is what the Chinese gov't does. We should be able to take his comments for what they are worth, someone's opinion, then choose to either continue to listen to him or choose another station.

Or "Jenni," another poster, stated, "Whatever happened to freedom of speech?"

Jo, Jenni and any other slow-moving homunculus who thinks that Savage suffered any abrigement of his freedom of speech for his Wednesday diatribe, let me tell you about the First Amendment. Here's what it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You'll notice that the first word says "Congress." Like, the government.

In other words, freedom of speech is guaranteed in this country as a right that the government cannot abridge except in specific circumstances (i.e., the famous fire-in-a-crowded-theater example).

A MISSISSIPPI RADIO NETWORK IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Get that?

When a Mississippi radio network finds a radio talk show host's comments insulting and derogatory enough to fire him, this is called "free market in action," not "infringement of First Amendment rights." Somehow, Jo, Jenni, and a host of others have got it into their heads that any condemnation of another person's comments or ideas or any reasonable consequences resulting from that person's free speech constitutes -- somehow -- an abridgment of their First Amendment rights.

Wrong. That's called a reasonable consequence for violating the common sense rule that "a closed mouth will gather no foot." If you're not sure, why don't you just call your boss a rectal sphincter and see what happens?

When you're fired, that won't be an abridgement of your free speech rights either.

It's also not censorship.

Censorship, according to this definition, "is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor. The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored. Censorship is the act or practice of removing material from things we encounter every day on the grounds that it is obscene, vulgar, and/or highly objectionable."

Guess what? Savage wasn't "censored." His reactionary comments, on the other hand, were broadcast across the nation from sea to shining sea in their unfiltered trogloditism and repeated throughout various media outlets -- again, with every precious, cretinous word completely intact. The closest Savage got to uttering a censorable obscenity under FCC rules -- well, besides the obvious intellectual obscenity of declaring utterly without data of any kind that "99%" of autism cases are bullcrap -- was the Yiddish word "putz," which, although it literally means "penis," was not censored by the FCC in any way.

Nope. Losing your job for opening your mouth does not equal "censorship." It's called "consequences." See above about calling your boss a rectal sphincter.

As anyone who's watched Spider-Man and understood it without Cliffs Notes can tell you, with power comes responsibility, and one consequence of possessing the power of freedom of speech is the concomitant responsibility for speech. That means that yes, you can say what you want. And if you do, you can be fired.

Added:  Courtesy of Media and Mayhem, I have a list of the advertisers who advertised on Savage's show on Diss Autism Day:

Digital Media Inc., U.S.A.

Nevada State Corporate Network, Inc.

Roger Schlesinger, the Mortgage Minute Guy

Effectur

Geico

Home Depot

Wachovia

Gold Bond

FreshStart America

Heritage Foundation

Debt Consultants of America

DirectBuy

WebEx

Thoughts-feeling- ready for positive change?

Thanks to Alan and Melinda for that great work. Notice the first commenter who asked

This seems like fear mongering to me. I don't understand why Christians feel the need to force their morality on others through laws. There is no "threat" to Christianity by homosexuals being allowed to marry.

This is the noetic effects of sin that I posted about sometime ago. The issue here is actually a reversal of what Micah said. The homosexual couple was actually trying to force their morality (or lack thereof) on the local congregation. Since the congregation took a stand for their belief system they were punished. The fact remains that a conservative view point of Scripture and a morally conservative belief system is not allowed by the State who know decides the proper belief system of a person's heart.

It's telling of the sad reality of our happily capitalist society today--no talking, just shut up and work. You shouldn't be stating your opinions and speaking, you should be working. Why the hell aren't you working already?

The problem with this mindset is that, 1.) it creates an industrialist, 50s-like society where production of new goods to buy and sell are all that matters, 2.) it stifles free speech, because only if you are wealthy (since you worked so hard, just like Paris Hilton) do you have the ability to speak...otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time, 3.) because it devalues the worth of every human being to suggest that they are simply there to produce and not to think, love, be happy, or live their lives the way they choose. Our only value, this mindset suggests, is in the money we make for our company, and in the material goods we own because of how much money we made the company (that they decided to let us keep a little of).

This kind of dismissive "I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because _____" applies to more than the work force. Has anyone ever refused to listen to your because of something that you are, or some personal choice you've made? Just fill in the blanks!

"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because you are a woman"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because you are young"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because you aren't a Christian"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because you aren't an American"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because you are black"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because you are poor"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because you aren't heterosexual"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because you're a damn liberal"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because you're my kid, I'm the parent"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because I'm the law"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because I'm rich"
"I don't have to listen to you, you aren't valuable because you dress odd"

How many times have you tried to speak your mind, only to have someone basically put their hands over their ears and sing La la la, I'm not listening to you! because they simply don't value you because of some made up reason?

We all do it. I admit that I find it hard to listen to Christians because part of me believes they're insane. And I'm sure they feel the same about me. But we have to work hard to make sure that we always listen to others, even if we want to dismiss them simply based on some excuse. Everyone has their problems, their insanities, their flaws and their traits. If our country keeps continuing down the path of the "I'm not listening" mindset, we'll end up with earplugs, eyes closed, and no one to talk to.

ok, i'll take you up on it - JON QWELANE IS A FUCKING RETARD - and a bigot and a chauvinist and a hate-monger! and you can call ME whatever you like!

i'm not usually one who subscribes to the little boxes that people like to put labels on. right now i'm in a relationship with a man, and yes, admittedly, have been most of my life, but.

i love PEOPLE.

what and who they are, how their idiosyncratic brains work, how they express themselves, what we have in common, etc. i fall for someone based on the chemistry between us, not the equipment between their legs, so yes, and maybe it's not generally accepted for someone in my industry to say so publicly, but i have been in love with a woman and if i were to fall splat for someone who happens to be the same sex as i am, then so be it!

being homosexual is not some strange aberration - it hasn't been entirely proven that people are born gay, but the evidence is certainly pointing that way. i quote from a very interesting article by neil swidey, published in the boston times, called "what makes people gay?"

"Swedish researchers reported finding important differences in how the brains of straight men and gay men responded to two compounds suspected of being pheromones - those scent-related chemicals that are key to sexual arousal in animals. The first compound came from women's urine, the second from male sweat. Brain scans showed that when straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up. That didn't happen with gay men. Instead, their hypothalamus lit up when they smelled the male-sweat compound, which was the same way straight women had responded. This research once again connecting the hypothalamus to sexual orientation comes on the heels of work with sheep. About 8 percent of domestic rams are exclusively interested in sex with other rams. Researchers found that a clump of neurons similar to the one LeVay identified in human brains was also smaller in gay rams than straight ones."

and from kidshealth:

Most medical professionals, including organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Psychological Association (APA), believe that sexual orientation involves a complex mixture of biology, psychology, and environmental factors. A person's genes and inborn hormonal factors may play a role as well. These medical professionals believe that — in most cases — sexual orientation, whatever its causes, is not simply chosen.

i happened to be the best man (see how irrelevant labels are?!) last october, at the wedding of wolfgang, my very first love. it's 25 years later and he is still and will always be in my life. he introduces me to all his friends as "my childhood sweetheart", and we jokingly say that i will always be "the wife", because you see, he married a man. it was one of the most sublime weddings i've ever been at and i am so happy for him that he found an amazing person with whom to share his life.

so jon, if you have something to bitch about, why not talk about the vast numbers of rapes and murders that happen in this country every day, or the escalating interest rates and crime? when you equate homosexuality with bestiality and you incite people to perpetrate even more violence against gays, you betray your own ignorance and bigotry. you know, there is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. it's narrow-minded bigots like you who are responsible for xenophobic attacks and the many gay and lesbian murders which still happen in the townships! how many more matthew shepard's, salome masooa's, and zoliswa nkonyana's will there be as a result of your article? is that what you want?

some of the best memories in my life were created with people you obviously despise. you're talking about my family, about a lot of my friends, about people i love. yup, i'm saying it loud and i'm saying it proud: I LOVE GAYS! it's homophobic bigots like you the world can do without.

Here is a good start on what is going on with SSG and the SPCK.

According to David Keen,

Dave Walker, who has been flying the flag for the beleagured SPCK bookshop chain, has been threatened with libel by the St. Stephen the Great Charitable Trust (SSG), who took over the chain last year. Since then, most (if not all) of the SPCK bookshops have closed, and there have been various questions about management practices. One former bookshop manager, Steve Jeynes, tragically took his own life just a few weeks ago.

While Peter Kirk issues this statement.

Dave Walker, cartoonist and blogger extraordinaire, blogger for the Church Times, friend of bishops (he’s the one on the right) and hanger-on (when they let him in) at the Lambeth conference, has shown what he is made of - that it is the typical spineless stuff of British Anglicans, who typically give in to every demand from Americans. (Well, the same is true of British politicians.) For in his fight to save the former SPCK bookshops, sold off for a song to the American Eastern Orthodox group St Stephen the Great Charitable Trust (SSGCT, or just SSG), Dave has capitulated at the first shot from his American opponents.

I find that statement unfair since Dave Walker said that he did not have the money to fight the American giant, although I believe if needed, people could help Dave in a defense fund of sorts. Of Course Iyov proves that no matter what, this issue is cached. Besides, this is not a time for potshots at the Americans, but a time for solidarity - from the littlest blogger to the the biggest.

I believe that as a person who believes wholeheartedly in the idea of freedom of speech, especially when it calls into question the truth, then more people need to stand with Dave. Save Dave.