Freedom Of Speech

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:49:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Glenn Greenwald touches on Ross Douthat's typical selective outrage when it comes to censorship, but I want to touch on a different point -- on what censorship actually is. The South Park example Douthat focuses on is an especially poor choice in my view. The South Park program that Douthat champions is no longer run by Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom, a publicly traded corporation. Whether Viacom should run the episode or not, is of course, a matter of opinion.

What is not an opinion is that it is utterly Viacom's RIGHT to decide whether it will run the episode or not. This is a much different issue than government censoring speech. The South Park duo, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, can express themselves in just about any manner they choose, but Viacom is not obliged to run it on their channels.

Indeed, Douthat himself proves the point when he seems to lament the lack of limits on expression in our culture:

In a less jaded era, [South Park's] creators would have been the rightful heirs of Oscar Wilde or Lenny Bruce — taking frequent risks to fillet the culture’s sacred cows.

In ours, though, even Parker’s and Stone’s wildest outrages often just blur into the scenery. In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.

It seems to me Douthat's laments are conflicting -- he wishes there were more limits, but if there aren't the ones he wants, then he wants to make sure images of Muhammad are not immune.

He's for all the speech that he approves of. Nothing wrong with that. I am for all the speech I approve of. But so long as the government is not the one deciding what speech is permitted, I think cries of "censorship" are overblown.

After all, Parker and Stone can make a film using Muhammad's image and post it on the Internet.

Speaking for me only

< What Makes Lindsey Graham Tick? | Baucus: Taxes On Wall Street Coming >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Freedom Of Speech | 66 comments (66 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

No doubt Douthat is a great proponent (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:10:30 AM EST

of network neutrality, right?

If I had my way, people like (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Anne on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:22:04 AM EST

Douthat would not get a mainstream media platform and be paid to write dreck that misinforms the masses and serves only to keep media standards low - but I don't get to decide who the NYT hires or where it draws the line. I can choose not to read it, though, and I'm glad I still have that choice.

He may object to Viacom's decision, but so what? I don't understand what ABC and Fox found objectionable about the Lane Bryant ad when they seem to have no qualms about running Victoria's Secret ads. I didn't understand why Focus on the Family, Tim Tebow and his mom got a Super Bowl ad, and the United Church of Christ didn't.

It may have something to do with money and ratings, but I could be wrong.

: Yep (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:24:51 AM EST

Exactly.

Ya just need to specify... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:18:20 AM EST

the difference between government censorship, which is illegal; and corporate censorship, which is totally legal.

Viacom is totally censoring South Park...but that's no crime, that is their right. As it is our right to agree or disagree.

They can (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:20:02 AM EST

make a film and put it on You Tube.

No need to rely on Viacom.


Absolutely... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:24:20 AM EST

they should throw a couple jabs at Viacom in the bit while they are at it...they surely have it coming.

Of all the stuff Viacom let them air, to beep out Muhammed like it's a cuss word is pretty lame...imo.


I agree (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:26:00 AM EST

Lamer though is whining about "censorship" when you never cared about anyone else being "censored."

That would be Douthat, as Greenwald amply demonstrates.


It will be telling (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:35:55 AM EST

if they try to back out of their contract. Presumably it addresses situations like this.


Meh (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:40:27 AM EST

South Park is so 5 years ago.


Well, I never watched really (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:45:50 AM EST

Maybe I'm too thin-skinned, but I generally found it more offensive and crude than funny.


: Oh it was never funny imo (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:47:45 AM EST

My point is it is not relevant anymore.
Personally,I think this was Douthat's way of writing a column on the Franklin Graham situation.

Just FYI (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:17:51 AM EST

gotta start from the fact that any images of Mohammed, even heroic and saintly ones, are forbidden under Islam. So it's even more vastly offensive to Muslims to have a caricature of Mohammed than it is to Christians to have a caricature of Christ-- and you know how well that goes down in this country.


Yeah Yeah Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:29:12 AM EST

The Jewish religion forbids "graven images" as well, and also forbids the uttering of gods name yaweh.

People can get their knickers in a twist about many things, and many people who live in this world, choose not to be bothered.

IOW it is not a religious obligation to be outraged, it is a choice.


The south park guys (none / 0) (#22)
by CST on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:23:10 AM EST

are intentionally offensive to all. The last time they were told they couldn't show Mohammed, they showed Jesus crapping on the American flag instead just to make a point (which they were allowed to show).

So in their defense (I guess...), they certainly try their hardest to be equal opportunity offenders. There are no sacred cows in South Park.


True, they are (none / 0) (#40)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:09:50 PM EST

and I don't watch them and would never have put them on the air to begin with, if I were King, because I don't think they're in the least bit funny.

I'm just explaining why this is even more deeply offensive to Muslims even than similar depictions of Christ would be to Christians and thus why the uproar.

Jews, of course, have no such savior to be offended by a caricature of. Abraham would be the only remotely comparable figure, but there's little fun to be made with Abraham, so he's generally ignored by the "comedians."


: Nonsense (none / 0) (#41)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:31:43 PM EST

The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances. Most contemporary Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of the prophets generally should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[3] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. In Islamic art, some visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from Persia of the Ilkhanate, and those made under the Ottomans, show him fully.[1]
It is the same for Jews, there are no depictions of God in a Jewish temple, or any of the prophets.. The gross point is for worshipers not to be lulled into idolatry. The fine point is for worshipers to keep the idea of god mysterious, as either depicting or naming god is limiting.
As far as non-worshipers go, they are free to do as they please. For any Jews or Muslims to get offended by non observers images of their respective holy figures, would mean that they are small minded and looking to make trouble.
Now on the other hand if someone were to force a Muslim or Jew to do something that is against their religion, particularly before killing them, it would be a very good reason to complain.

If they really (none / 0) (#42)
by jondee on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:45:32 PM EST

want to test the limits of tolerance in some quarters of this country, they should show Palin crapping on a Confederate flag.

Death threats would probably be sure to follow.


Nah... (none / 0) (#43)
by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:53:30 PM EST

that would only turn the people you're thinking of on.


: lol (none / 0) (#45)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 04:08:01 PM EST

But when they get turned on they think of threatening death.. lol
These people are not much different from the freicorps (future SS), who at once would be mortified by a moral offense and then lust from the blood oozing out of fresh wounds.

: What people do in (none / 0) (#46)
by jondee on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 04:17:01 PM EST

the privacy of their own right wing, secessionist gatherings is strictly their business..
It long as it isnt anything that involves Jesus in a glass container or some other receptacle.

Thanks for the info G... (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:41:28 AM EST

this Islam stuff is worse than I thought...if you take it too seriously anyway.


Same Rulz For Jews (none / 0) (#33)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:17:36 PM EST

It comes from Abrahamic laws.. second commandment in the ten commandments.

Of course the reason for this law is that those practicing Judaism or Islam do not worship false gods. Even naming is taboo as once god is named or depicted it becomes limited and dead in a way.. Best for god to exist only in the mind as a concept.

Christianity dropped this idea..


It's clear to me now... (none / 0) (#34)
by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:42:44 PM EST

why I turned away from this crap at a young age...same reason I could never join the military...just way too many f*ckin' rules with far too few reasons behind them:)


Well (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:51:10 PM EST

The rules are fine, imo. And I actually believe that once you name something it ceases to have the power that it has only existing as a concept..

But the biiiiiiig distortion here, is making believe that the rules also must be followed by non-believers. That is just nutty extremism, and a total distortion and misunderstanding of the rule.

It is like the f'ing west village puritans who wanted a law passed because people staying at the Standard Hotel, on the highline, were having sex and walking around naked near the windows (much to the delight of many onlookers). Of course the puritans chose to look, in supposed horror... f'ing hypocrites, but it always comes down to using "the children" in order to force their ideas on the rest of us.

Don't like it don't look. Same goes for making fun of holy men.


The bikepath... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:58:48 PM EST

brew-ha-ha in Williamsburg is another good example. Well said...and I'm with ya, every man needs a code, and your code is your business, god bless ya and your code...just don't force it on others of a different mind. And don't expect others to cater to you...not gonna happen in a free society, nor should it.


Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:07:54 PM EST

The bikepath bruhaha is exactly the same thing... although it is probably a bit more dishonest than the WV puritans.

At the core of the W'burg protest is that they do not want to get run over by a'hole bikers, which there are many, while they are hanging out all over the sidewalks and street after services.

They believed that the scantily clad biker argument would have more traction, than the argument that they owned the sidewalks and streets and the bikes put a crimp in their loitering.

Believe me, I do like the bike lanes, but I do not have any special empathy for many of the bikers who would run you over in a second and then spit on you for getting in their way


: True enough... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:18:35 PM EST

about inconsiderate bikers, but thats true of most any mode of transport in the NY...cars, pedestrians, you name it. It's a jungle out there:)

well .. then (none / 0) (#48)
by nyrias on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 05:59:42 PM EST

OBVIOUSLY, Islam is at odds with freedom of speech, a CORNER STONE American value.

Which is, of course, of no surprise. Islam is one of the restrictive religion, at least in its fundamental incarnation.

There is no freedom of association (a female cannot go out with any male unless it is a relative), no freedom of express (a female cannot wear a bikini on the street), no equal protection of the sexes.

The sad thing is that not only they are against freedom of speech (in this instance), they are threatening VIOLENCE over it. I guess they do not value life (at least those of people who offend their sensitivity) as well as we do.


well-then (none / 0) (#52)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 06:28:13 PM EST

If you believe gyrfalcon's disinformation, I have a bridge to sell you, cheap, well not so cheap, but I can give you a good deal.. lol

And many extremists threaten violence, American, Israeli, Jewish, Hindu, the list goes on..

I know it is hard for you not to be bigoted, with all the wingnut propagnda you must read, and listen to, but to generalize that Islam is anything other than the religion of 1.2 billion people is absurd.


So ... (none / 0) (#56)
by nyrias on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:45:08 AM EST

Enlighten me.

Are you saying that Islam countries are all for freedom of speech as we do?

Are you saying that Islam countries have equal protection laws like we do?

I am more than happy to be straighten out.

Oh, and btw, the fact that there are OTHER groups of extremist (Christian? White Supremacy ..) still does NOT make Islam extremist calling for violence right. It is simply a BAD argument to say it is ok to do bad things just because there are OTHERs doing so.


Isalm Is A Religion (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:27:45 AM EST

Not a country.


Isn't Islam .. (none / 0) (#60)
by nyrias on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:35:04 PM EST

the official religion of some countries and the countries are run on the code of Islamic values?


Some Say (none / 0) (#61)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:43:42 PM EST

That Christianity is the official religion of the US. And religious identification of a government has never stopped it from being corrupt, if that is what you are getting at.

Again Islam is a religion, there are 1.3 billion people who are adherents.

Islam is not a country.


What has Christianity anything to do (none / 0) (#64)
by nyrias on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:17:10 PM EST

with this?

We are talking making fun of Mohammed here, not Jesus. I am all for making fun of Jesus too but no one is threatening to kill cartoonists who make fun of jesus, is there?

So you mean the 1.3 Billion Islams, or a majority of them, are all ok with NOT killing the creators of South Park?


: WTF? (none / 0) (#67)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:12:26 PM EST

Right Wing Christian Militas in the US have been making death threats for a long time. Have you missed that?
Are the 2.1 billion Christians, or a majority of them, all ok with not killing Muslims, or dark skinned American "heathens"?

With U.S companies (none / 0) (#62)
by jondee on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 03:03:46 PM EST

including many specializing in "security and surveillance", being so heavily invested in totalitarian China, Im sure you're all over that, too, eh Nyrias? Being that you so deeply treasure free speech..


No ... (none / 0) (#65)
by nyrias on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:18:16 PM EST

and there are those who are trying to provide some free information access in China .. most recently Google ..

Now those are beacon of what US companies SHOULD BE.

BTW, what has these to do with Islam and THEIR views on free speech?


Im sure even (none / 0) (#66)
by jondee on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:55:40 PM EST

some Islamic societies have their beacons of how things SHOULD BE.

You were the one who made the stark contrast between "our" freedoms and the way things are in other parts of the world, but when I brought up the fact that many in this country actively promote repression elsewhere, suddenly Googles half-assed p.r efforts make up for everything else..

So, the question remains: are Islamic countries the only places where we should be concerned about the lack of freedom, and if so why? Because of 9/11? Or because they stone and behead people rather than warehousing and many cases railroading, (generally poor) lawbreakers into any number of prisons sprouting up like mushrooms?


: Obvious NOT the only place ... (none / 0) (#69)
by nyrias on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:02:23 AM EST

But does that mean that we should NOT be concerned about freedom in Islamic countries?
We should be AS CONCERNED about freedom in Islamic countries as in CHINA.

just as an fyi (none / 0) (#63)
by CST on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 04:09:48 PM EST

you know most countries (including Europeand ones) do not have freedom of speech like we do.

There are plenty of countries in this world that do not have strong equal protection laws.

Also, about 2.5 million Muslims currently live in the United States under these laws quite happily. So I'm not really sure what your point is.

Islam is not a country. You are confusing cultural differences with religious ones. They coincide somewhat but when you are talking about a group of over a billion people you want to be carefull of how you generalize. There are vast differences even between countries where the majority population is Islamic. Turkey is just one example that probably doesn't fit your frame.


On the whole (none / 0) (#53)
by jondee on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 06:35:16 PM EST

I dont know if "Islam" is much more at odds with it than a media thats controlled by a relative handful of mega-conglomerates shilling wmds and Hummers in the name of "freedom".


: Really? (none / 0) (#57)
by nyrias on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:49:19 AM EST

I don't know what the media will or will NOT do ...
However, I do know that in THIS country, I can go make a blog and rant about ANYTHING without any consequences. I can express very unflattering opinions about our president. I can express very unflattering opinions about ANYONE in the government. I can express very unflattering opinions about Jesus and any figures in the bible or whatever religious text.
Is it the same in a Islam country?

You miss the bigger point (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:38:05 AM EST

Parker and Stone LOVE that Viacom won't run it. People are talking about it and writing about it and they will include it on a DVD release and make tons mire money.

They are as big of corporate whores as they lampoon.


: Probably right... (none / 0) (#27)
by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:40:28 AM EST

the corporate censorship has generated more buzz than any images of Muhammed uncensored ever could.

Viacom (none / 0) (#39)
by jondee on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:57:48 PM EST

If intentionally providing incomplete info for the purposes of spin is a form of censorship - and why shouldnt it be considered as such? - then the way Viacom dealt with the 60 Minutes story of the Fortunate Son's sojourn in the ANG: focusing solely on Rather & co's flubs while completely ignoring the evidence turned up by the Guardian - BBC investigation, was censorship of the first order.

Censorship goes on all the time and often involves the censorship of information about censorship.

One type of censorship we'll always be guaranteed to hear about right away is any that can be construed as being due to pressure from un-American religions..particularly ones practiced by people many in this country want to go to war with.


Perhaps, but I wonder whether they (none / 0) (#18)
by Radix on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:57:34 AM EST

may have some contractual obligations that prevent doing something on You Tube, at least using the South Park characters.


If they sold the South Park characters (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:06:06 AM EST

which they almost certainly did, well, they took the money right?


: That they did. My point was more along the (none / 0) (#23)
by Radix on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:26:18 AM EST

lines of whether they could or could not use YouTube to make their point. I'm guessing their contracts may prevent such things, YouTube posts, from going on.

Obviously (none / 0) (#9)
by Yes2Truth on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:31:30 AM EST

BTD said:

"I am for all the speech I approve of."

Does that mean you don't approve of the joke

about Jews that President Obama's National

Security Director recently told ... as seen in

the link that was posted here, but removed by

someone?

Half my relatives are Jewish, so I certainly

don't approve of it.

Slightly on topic (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:34:58 AM EST

I did not hear the joke so I can not comment.

I do not plan on relying on Andrew Breitbart for accuracy so if you have another link, please provide it.


Here is Haaretz (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:45:17 AM EST

"A Taliban militant gets lost and is wandering around the desert looking for water. He finally arrives at a store run by a Jew and asks for water.

The Jewish vendor tells him he doesn't have any water but can gladly sell him a tie. The Taliban begins to curse and yell at the Jewish storeowner. The Jew, unmoved, offers the rude militant an idea: Beyond the hill, there is a restaurant; they can sell you water.

The Taliban keeps cursing and finally leaves toward the hill. An hour later he's back at the tie store. He walks in and tells the merchant: "Your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.""

I think the joke is in bad taste, stereotyping and inappropriate from a government official.


Astonishing (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:21:04 AM EST

that anybody, never mind a government official, would give themselves permission to tell ethnic jokes about anybody these days, never mind about Muslims and Jews. Just mind-boggling.


I assume discussions are ongoing (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:31:50 AM EST

about how his departure should be handled.


Yeah, and this wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by brodie on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:57:52 AM EST

something someone overheard Jones whispering to the person sitting next to him at the banquet table. The dude steps up to the mic and opens his speech with it.

Well, at this point I wouldn't mind Obama taking this nifty opportunity to get rid of some of the stupid and some of the crusty conservative establishment types in his nat'l security chain.

Matter of fact, it just so happens that one Bill Moyers is available right about now for further service to his country ...


: 2010 elections mean he won't be fired (none / 0) (#31)
by Yes2Truth on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:56:41 PM EST

Otherwise, maybe.

Interesting Joke and COntext (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:10:44 PM EST

I do not think that this joke was in the least bit either conscious spontaneous bigotry, or an unconscious mistake. He stated that this "story" was In order to set the stage for his remarks...

And the joke was well received, by many, oddly enough.

Here is the cc-span unscrubbed video of the speech, mark 12:10. And the WH transcript

From my point of view the joke is more about power than stereotypes. The fact that water is involved, the most important thing that we need to sustain life, is also no coincidence.

The reason for the speech was to emphasize that there has been a shift, albeit slight, in US policy toward Israel. This "joke" comes at the heels of Obama's remarks at the recent nuclear terrorism summit. Obama also said that unresolved conflicts, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, affect the United States.

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower," Obama said. "And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.‬"

Haaretz

and this bit of Gen Jones speech is what the stage was set for, imo:

In our pursuit of a two-state solution, we recognize that peace must be made by the parties and cannot be imposed from the outside. At the same time, we understand that the status quo is not sustainable. It is not sustainable for Israel's identity as a secure, Jewish, and democratic state, because the demographic clock keeps ticking and will not be reversed. The status quo is not sustainable for Palestinians who have legitimate aspirations for sovereignty and statehood. And the status quo is not sustainable for the region because there is a struggle between those who reject Israel's existence and those who are prepared to coexist with Israel -- and the status quo strengthens the rejectionists and weakens those who would live in peace.

Link (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:46:24 AM EST

here.


Of all the things (none / 0) (#44)
by jondee on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 04:00:06 PM EST

going on in govt circles and the world to offended about, I'd have to say this wouldnt make my top forty.

Not to stereotype (again), but I wouldnt be at all surprised to find out that a Jew wrote that joke; my experience has been that "they" are good at that kind of thing.


it does not ... (none / 0) (#49)
by nyrias on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 06:01:12 PM EST

matter who wrote the joke. The fact is that THIS religion calls for VIOLENCE over speech.

I am sure you can make fun of jews all day (oh yeah, i know some really insensitive jewish jokes) on national tv and no one will try to behead you.


: WTF (none / 0) (#51)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 06:19:54 PM EST

Religion speaking? What are you hearing the collective voice of 1.2 billion people through your teeth? Sounds delusional to me, I would try tinfoil wrapped tightly around your skull, it may help.

Gen Jones Has Apoligized (none / 0) (#47)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 05:50:25 PM EST

I wish that I had not made this off the cuff joke at the top of my remarks, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by it. It also distracted from the larger message I carried that day: that the United States commitment to Israel's security is sacrosanct.

The speech was well received.


As stereotypes go (none / 0) (#50)
by jondee on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 06:12:43 PM EST

being pegged as shrewd business people with a strong sense of irony isnt exactly the most degrading, disempowering a image you could project onto a people.

People are apologizing these days for everything but the things they should apologize for.


: Yes (none / 0) (#59)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:35:28 AM EST

Well clearly the "joke" was meant to suggest that power and shrewdness is fine, but without humanity it winds up getting laughed at.
IOW the joke will blow up in Israel's face, and if the US is Israel's closest ally, it the egg will also taint the US.
Clearly the US new position is moving from unconditional love, to something less, minutia, but still shockingly, something less...

Stop linking to Breitbart (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:49:03 AM EST

A proven liar.

I provided a Haaretz link.


: Thanks for posting the joke (none / 0) (#30)
by Yes2Truth on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:48:10 PM EST

I was afraid there for a while that you were just
looking for an excuse to delete another one of my
comments -- but then I realized that just because
you're a Democrat? it doesn't mean you are
of the right-wing variety.
BTW- I'm sure you used to delete posts if they
were didn't properly use the name "President Bush",
right? No toleration for satirical/critical constructs.

Violence, not censorship (none / 0) (#68)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:57:50 AM EST

The issue is not censorship, but intimidation by threats of violence. See link.