Horizon

One of the sadder parts of this is the failure of so many parties to consider that individuals bear responsibility for their individual actions. All this collective ascription of guilt. As though a government were responsible for the newspapers published in a country. As though all of "the Arabs" were responsible for riots not joined by all. This looks like a partial antidote, though.

Incidentally, the admininstrative branch of the U.S. government released its proposal for the fiscal 2007 national budget yesterday. The U.S. budget has many important implications for citizens of the U.S. and the rest of the world. Is everyone too busy shouting about a bloody cartoon or is there any space to talk about substantive politics?

Is everyone too busy shouting about a bloody cartoon or is there any space to talk about substantive politics?

Frankly, some of us think that a conflict between press freedom and mob intimidation that has claimed three lives already is substantive.

Ahh, but all this is just a distraction from the real issue -- domestic politics, right? That claim can be made on the other side as well. This Saturday, NPR led with stories about the preparation for Gonzales's testimony, burying the then-recent burning of the Danish embassy to a few seconds at the end of the summary. Surely you don't think that's the correct prioritization for those stories?

The biggest way the left and right sides of the blog world diverge is not on the positions they take on a subject, but on coverage. I was hard pressed last week to find any mention of the cartoon row on Atrios or Kos. You may say this is due to focus on domestic issues instead of foreign ones, but what took Juan Cole so long to address the subject? Even then, his response wavered between "move along, nothing to see here" and blaming it all on imperialism.

The unfortunate result is that reportage and analysis of the uglier side of the Muslim world is left to the LGFs of the world. Those of us who think the subject serious and worth researching get stuck with coverage by anti-Muslim Zionists because they're the only ones who'll talk about it. I see it as all part of the broader pattern of 21st century politics: the Right proposes rotten and stupid solutions to terrorism, the Left pretends the problem doesn't exist.

Althoughly from a legal point of view irrelevant to the present fracas, I am reminded a lot of the problem of 'fighting words' and the First Amendment. As with so many such cases you can't help but wonder what a dose of common sense on all sides might have accomplished.

Quite a bit, I think. What's particularly worrisome is the people (mainly the touring Danish imams) trying hard to suppress the exercise of common sense and restraint.

Erm, a fair number of folks, including OMB and the Mortgage Bankers' Association, think the U.S. budget is pretty important. It's hardly a left-wing foible to take an interest in the intentions of the world's most powerful executive office for $2.77 trillion in spending.

Yes, of course the cartoon riots are substantive events and of course, unfortunately, the deaths are real. But the riots themselves are demagogue-built distractions, and giving them attention -- even negative attention expressing the noblest principles imaginable -- is only going to prolong discussion on the subject. This is the kind of symbolic thing that only matters to people with too much time on their hands. Anyone with real problems or real work to do will just take a moment or two to laugh or cry at the notion of adult human beings killing each other over a cartoon before simply getting back to work. When the riots are over there'll still be mouths to feed, there and here both. It's just more fun to get indignant than to try and make anything better for anyone, so of course a certain percentage of underemployed people anywhere are just gonna get indignant some more instead of working. There and here both.

Much of Scandinavia's working population are 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from muslim countries and are themselves practicing muslims. I think, therefore, that it's imperative that a decision is made by their societies how to answer the protests, boycotts and violent reprisals. Moreover, it represents a direct financial blow to the Danish economy since several muslim nations are now boycotting Arla. This taken with the obvious viral nature of this kind of news makes it impossible to ignore. Given France's recent troubles with rioting I find it hard to imagine that French society could idly sit by and pretend that this isn't happening since that same cross-section is surely waiting for a response. Once you've hit norther Europe and central Europe it's no small leap to hit Europe as a whole. Also, even if the governments themselves had wanted to stay out of the imbroglio it's incumbent upon them to at least recognize that their embassies are being torched and their ambassadors sent home.

The governments themselves obviously cannot legally censure the media and yet they have to say something since they represent a large muslim population who are all keenly aware of the issue.

I think the notion that people with real problems will ignore this issue is a bit simplistic. Evidently there are many muslims in the world who take this seriously. Many of them are in fact in Europe now [See IMAM stories and the like]. While there are surely loads of middle class Europeans who would never care to note if < 10% of their population were suddenly carrying signs and screaming for reforms, I think loads of people would be up in arms if they government came out and said: "Well, you can poke fun at everything but Islam." And that's the issue at hand. The governments involved would love to stay out of it, but they cannot ignore what's happening around the world and their own people are pressing the issue.

Anyway, I don't think it's something that can be ignored. It must be addressed, but it is unfortunate that certain groups are feeding the fire more than simply standing on principles.

Forgive me, but I got up extremely early this morning in connection with someone about to have surgery, and at least on this particular day the demands of the damaged human body seem to me a great deal less negotiable than an argument about some offensive drawings. People could simply decide not to argue about the drawings. Not to glorify them, not to dignify them. They won't, of course, but literally speaking, as a physical possibility, they could just decide to stop fighting and arguing. On the other hand, people can't, for example, just decide to stop having degenerative joint disease.

Yes, I know, I know, it's not about this group of drawings by itself, it's about people feeling that the drawings are emblematic of attitudes and governmental policies that have material effects. Nevertheless, I don't care who started it, everyone should stop it now.

(Look, circumstances have had me playing mama for a few days; if I'm talking like a mother, chalk it up to environment, not heredity. In a few days when I'm back at my desk being a full-time journalist I'll be emotionally able to afford rhetoric on grand principles like chivalry and liberty and honor and equality and freedom and Decency. Right now I'm seeing political dudgeon as a luxury, at least so long as it's not directly advancing anyone's material physical well-being. Where you stand, as usual, depends on where you sit.)

The Beeb's rather tied up in knots about this. There is I think a plausible case to be made for not republishing the pictures, but the Corporation is a particularly awkward situation after having broadcast the Jerry Springer opera last year. Mr. Horrocks (who was not responsible for the latter decision) has said that: "The BBC is not the primary publisher of these cartoons so to some extent it's different from Jerry Springer where the BBC was responsible for commissioning that programme." Well, yes, but that raises more questions than it answers, surely.

Amusing because it's precisely the opposite reasoning that the Jyllands-Posten used in deciding not to publish caricatures of Jesus which were submitted unsolicited.

The governments involved would love to stay out of it, but they cannot ignore what's happening around the world and their own people are pressing the issue.

So what do you predict that Scandinavian governments will do? Are there concrete steps that would defuse the tension without compromising press freedoms? Or does this go further, into the whole assimilation discussion?

I love the strained even-handedness Peter Horrocks displays: "Obviously the BBC does not want to give offence to anyone on either side of this debate, so if people - whichever side of the argument they fall within - have taken offence, I am obviously concerned and apologise for that."

How many people on the press-freedom side of the debate have been offended by the BBC?

What Jerry Springer opera? Somebody want to explain?

What Jerry Springer opera?

See here. I was in Britain at the time it was aired (I think) but I didn't see it. As I understand it, the figure of Jesus plays a prominent and irreverent role in the production. It was the most controversial show in the BBC's history, receiving over 50,000 complaints. Theology aside, the critics seemed to agree that it wasn't all that funny.

See here and here for coverage of the Springer protests.

Ish. The Simpsons have done worse. Like I said, don't people have anything better to do than yell about blasphemy?

If there's a "public figure" exception for satire when it comes to the likes of Richard Nixon and Jerry Falwell, then surely saints, gods and prophets also get to be public figures -- don't they?

This stuff is catching, too.

Speaking of grand gestures and "the LGFs of the world," did you folks realize that the "Truth Laid Bear" site and the LGF site are both part of Pajamas Media?

Like I said, don't people have anything better to do than yell about blasphemy?

I wouldn't exercise that particular right to freedom of expression too near a group of protesting Muslims right now ...