My, things have been busy whilst I’ve been gone. I just flew in from San Diego and boy, are my arms tired!

First, I visited the wonderful city of San Diego the past week, one of the few cities I’ve attended in which I can actually kinda sorta navigate — but only because I finally figured out the ocean is on one side and the hills on the other. Luckily that doesn’t change or I’d be in big trouble.

FYI, I’ll be gone one week per month on business to San Diego the rest of the year; yes, it breaks my heart to go there — NOT. Despite the local corrupt politics and it being Illegal Immigrant and Illegal Mexican Drug (and tunnel) Central for Fornicalia, no one can deny its incredible weather, beautiful surroundings and military background.

_____________________________

And on to a few topics at hand:

The Cartoons Controversy Continues:

Fundamentals and/or Islamists seem to indicate that there can be no portrayals of the prophet Mohammed at all. Yeah? Says who? Seems that Islam has no hard and fast rule that The West is directly breaking.

The Koran, Islam’s holiest book, condemns idolatry, but has no direct condemnations of pictorial art. Direct prohibitions of pictorial art, or any depiction of sacred figures, are found in some hadith, or recorded oral traditions. The Koran, Islam’s holiest book, mentions nothing about pictorial art.

So why all the rioting? And why all the rioting since the original “cartoons” were printed in Denmark almost 6 months ago (September of 2005)? I would submit: a sense of entitlement. Provided, of course, by the Western World.

The U.S. Wimps Out:

Denmark printed the cartoons. France printed the cartoons. I reproduced the only funny one but, if you’d like, I’ll reproduce them all; I couldn’t care less. Come one loony Islamist, come all. Seems like our own American media, bastions of the liberal and free press, have decided to take a stand based in fright and realization.

Yes, it’s apparently just fine to portray the 1987 “art” exhibit Piss Christ and then, a short time later, take those Christians to task who had the temerity to actually object to their religious symbols portrayed in such a fashion. Those damnable Christians; they should be more accepting! Let us not forget Madonna and Child II (1989), for example, in which the subject is similarly submerged in urine but not nearly so well known as Piss Christ.

But of course that was then and this is now: we have clearly loosened our inhibitions towards the portrayal of various artistic themes in the media, have we not?

Well, it’s now 17 years later and the answer is: apparently not.

Here is where the media is hyper-hypocritical:

So: it’s okay to portray Christianity in this fashion. Apparently NOT okay to portray Islam in this fashion by merely reproducing the cartoons so that American viewers have an idea of the nature of the issue.

They are bending over backwards to accommodate Islam in an attempt to minimize heartache, or protests, or even (gulp!) overt v-i-o-l-e-n-c-e.

The MSM DEM media maintain that Islam should be understood.

Well first: what happened to the understanding of Christianity?

What This Reveals:

That those who believe we shouldn’t attempt to protect our national boundaries, that we shouldn’t be monitoring transmissions between suspected terrorist parties, somehow, now, “get it” that Islamists mean business and can kill or hurt people. Only when it was personalized (i.e., via Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt) did the media remotely seem to understand lines in the sand. Some ridiculous reporter actually said on the radio: “Until Bob (Woodruff), this didn’t sink home for us.” Really? I suppose those 2,000 + soldiers laying down their lives didn’t mean much if we go by that man’s statement.

Islamists are killing and injuring people in other countries. Is it an act of courage not to print the cartoons? Or is it a decision based in fear and the ultimate knowledge that Islamists are actually Bad People — ?

Sorry DEM; can’t have it both ways. Sometimes things just are black and white.

Like you just discovered.