Ocryx and Joe

Ocryx and Joe take a look at World Cartoonists Solidarity Day

Because there are no standards like double standards
posted May 20, 2010
Ocryx and Joe - Ocryx and Joe take a look at World Cartoonists Solidarity Day (Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, absurd cartoon jihad, Instigating the Amish to Commit Acts of Terror, Mennonite Suicide Bombers, Banned on Facebook, Cartoon Safe for Pakistan, Apologies to Arne Sorenson, Free Advertising for Safe Room Contractors)
Sizes:   web  |  email  |  print

<< >>
The original Arne Sorenson inspiration for this strip may be found here:
As many are aware, a Seattle artist thought it would be a good idea to make May 20th, 2010 International "Everybody Draw M------- Day" in protest of Comedy Central's censorship of an already self censored cartoon. Even though twice censored, this directly led to an attempted car bombing outside the networks headquarters in New York's Times Square. The Seattle artist, who I will not name, began to receive multiple death threats. She did the prudent thing, and immediately cancelled her idea, claiming it was just a big "joke". Meanwhile, others had already started a Facebook page promoting her idea, which caused many more death threats- and ultimately, caused the nation of Pakistan to completely block Facebook from all of its IP's for the duration of May.
(Interestingly, Cartoon Network had no problems at all showing a porn-addicted Jesus or a coke-snorting Buddha on that same episode.)

As you can tell, I decided not to actually draw M-------d. Why pull punches? Because I can show the curious trend of selective self-censorship without necessarily offending anyone (other than Mennonites and Amish, who I am pretty sure are not going to try to kill me over showing a depiction of Meno Simons).  I do respect other cultures, and have no need to insult others- especially those who may be minding their own business and practicing their faith in a peaceful and constructive way.

That being said, I cannot abide by double standards. And therefore cannot permit those who feel that subjecting citizens of a free country to be judged under what is essentially Shari�a law, which has no part in our Constitution and traditions. When in other countries, absolutely respect their laws and cultures. When in our country, respect OUR laws and culture. It�s pretty much that simple.

Although I disagree with the deliberative antagonization called for in his opinion, author Robert Spencer eloquently states the following (remember- he chose to use the "M-word", not me):

�Why draw Muhammad? Why make fun of the man Muslims revere most? Why arouse their ire?
Precisely because they react with murderous rage when one does this.
Now that may seem odd -- why would anyone want to provoke someone else's murderous rage?
Because it is an object lesson in pluralism. Either we put up with being offended by one another, or we enact speech codes that establish one group as beyond criticism. The latter road is the path to authoritarianism and tyranny. To respond to speech one considers offensive without threats and murder is a cardinal element of a society that respects all its citizens enough to allow them a voice in the public square, no matter how despised and hated their opinions may be. So free speech is a key element of any society in which all people are equal before the law.
And now when free speech is under serious attack both Stateside and internationally, and a key battlefield in the war against it is so-called "Islamophobia" and the Muhammad cartoons, it is essential to stand up and say that it is madness to threaten and kill over a cartoon drawing. And to stand for free speech whatever the risks.�

So back to me, what do we do about this new world that we live in?
What CAN we do?
If you can figure that one out, please let me know.  

by fredo on 5/20/2010 @ 7:05am
I'll look at your drawing of Mohammed Jinx. And I promise there will be no reprisals.

However If RR draws one more picture belittling old white men, then all bets are off.

by NineInchNachos on 5/20/2010 @ 7:59am
you better check yo self, before you wreck yo self...


"No cops or traffic lights living in an Amish paradise "

by The Jinxmedic on 5/20/2010 @ 8:11am
I do believe that Weird Al received a death threat over that one, but it wasn't from the Amish, or the Muslims...

by NineInchNachos on 5/20/2010 @ 12:32pm
Gilligan's island theme song copyright holders?

by NineInchNachos on 5/20/2010 @ 3:57pm
this just in from NPR..

Online 'Draw Mohammed' Campaign Triggers Protests


by JesseHillFan on 5/20/2010 @ 7:08pm
I saw that a few days ago RR.Wondered what it was when I first heard about it at a computer hardware forum.

By the way I would like to see this story at the news tribune.

"Giant Cartoon Character blocking I-5."
Any takers on making a giant cartoon character and a stunt?
It would make a hilarious read.

by fredo on 5/20/2010 @ 11:01pm
A few more cartoons here:


by NineInchNachos on 5/24/2010 @ 12:30pm

by L.S.Erhardt on 5/24/2010 @ 10:24pm
Does anyone actually want to see my contribution to EDMD?
I did it for myself, but if there is an interest, I'll gladly share.

by The Jinxmedic on 5/25/2010 @ 8:23am
Uh, yes- I do...

by fredo on 5/25/2010 @ 8:31am
post your drawing thorax, we all want to see it

by L.S.Erhardt on 5/25/2010 @ 1:53pm
As you wish

by The Jinxmedic on 5/25/2010 @ 2:01pm
Ahhhhh! They will be after you now! RUN!

by The Jinxmedic on 6/18/2010 @ 10:44am
This just in- run faster, Thorax:

"Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is being investigated by Pakistani police under a section of the penal code that makes blasphemy against Muhammad punishable by death.

BBC Urdu reports according to a Google Translation that Pakistan's Deputy Attorney General has launched a criminal investigation against Zuckerberg and others in response to Facebook hosting a "Draw Muhammad" contest on its site late last month. On May 19, Pakistani authorities blocked access to Facebook over the contest, and this ban was lifted on May 31 after Facebook removed the page in Pakistan and other countries.

Section 295-C of the penal code reads: "Use of derogatory remark etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet, whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable for fine."


Note the phrase "directly or indirectly". Zuckerberg's a goner, and he didn't even draw anything.

by L.S.Erhardt on 6/18/2010 @ 10:59am
Last time I checked, I lived in the US of A, not Pakistan, Afghanistan, or any *stan.
We follow the Constitution in these parts, not Sharia.

If you go to said countries, by all means obey their laws. But here, I obey OUR laws. They could fine me all they want, I have no intention of ever going over there anyway.

by The Jinxmedic on 6/18/2010 @ 2:43pm
You would be safe in Oklahoma- they recently prohibited Sharia in a vote.

by NineInchNachos on 7/13/2010 @ 11:36am
art to die for


cartoons that killed the cartoonist


david horsey:

by fredo on 9/16/2010 @ 7:06pm
A Seattle cartoonist who became the target of a death threat with a satirical piece called "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" has gone into hiding on the advice of the FBI.

Just last week our president begged a previously unknown pastor not to burn the koran and now the FBI pressures a cartoonist into hiding because she authored the "draw mohammed day." This indulgent capitulation to the islamic religion is going to cause us a lot of harm down to road.


by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 9/16/2010 @ 7:29pm
Glad no one has suggested burning Korans to increase the parking time limit from 2 hours to 4 hours.

by NineInchNachos on 9/16/2010 @ 7:55pm
to say this cartoonist is under attack by the whole 'islamic religion' is offensive and ignorant.

by marumaruyopparai on 9/16/2010 @ 10:19pm
I'm pretty sure that the loudest voices from the Islamic community are of the radical fundamentalist variety because those are the voices that are trumpeted by mainstream televised media for high ratings. That, or all Muslims are radical fundamentalists bent on punishing infidels. Which is more likely?

by marumaruyopparai on 9/16/2010 @ 10:32pm
The FBI also declined to commen Thursday. David Gomez, the FBI's specia agent in charge of counterterrorism in Seattle, told the New York Daily News in July that the agency was doing everything it could to protect individuals on a fatwa list issued by Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki -NPR

People like this Awlaki are the real bastards in all of this.

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 12:11am
Thank you marumaruyopparai.

by fredo on 9/17/2010 @ 7:02am
Maru you seem to be suggesting that the radical islamic fundamentalists are the ones causing all the trouble and that there is a non-radical islamic group which supports freedom of speech. Why don't we ever hear from these islamic moderates who support freedom of speech? Is the mainstream media preventing them from speaking out against the radical islamics?

by The Jinxmedic on 9/17/2010 @ 8:02am
marumaruyopparai, excellent points.

If we agree that only 1% of Mohamadeans can be considered to be fundamentalist radicals, (and therefore most likely to follow religious edicts demanding the death of western cartoonists, authors, loony pastors, jews, gays, teachers, and whatever else), and then say (for simplicity's sake) that there are at least 1 Billion Mohamadeans worldwide (a closer estimate is 2.5 Billion), that leaves us over 1 million dangerous islamicist radical fundalmentalists to worry about.

Although I do not condone insulting any group (after all, I am a "Lawful Neutral" cartoonist), it would be nice to still have freedom of speech within the United States.

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 8:09am
Don't be a TOOL fredo! Stop listening to RUSH/BECK/ALEXJONES

START Listening to more to NPR/PBS news shows. And Democracy Now if you're feeling edgy. You'll hear plenty of 'yo that guy is wack' from our moderate friends.

Let's get RATIONAL!

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 8:17am
What we have, and what we have always had is

FREEDOM OF SPEECH + insane people.

the only difference is the world is getting a lot smaller thanks to instant global communication. Do you have something to say? The WORLD is listening.

by fredo on 9/17/2010 @ 8:22am
"Let's get RATIONAL!" nachos

So people who celebrate freedom of speech must get rational. Is there a limit on freedom of speech? We should only exercise freedom of speech if it doesn't offend someone? Some of RRs drawings offend me but I don't issue a fatwa on him.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/17/2010 @ 8:27am
Hmmm... the salient point here is that US Citizens, protected by our Constitution, are under threat of death by groups of radical extremists, numbering in the MILLIONS, extremists that have already proved that they have no problem operating within our borders.

When faced with the planned Q'uran burning in Florida (which unltimately did NOT happen), why did our administration plead with the individual not to do it, when the more corrrect track would be to not only strongly condemn the planned burning, but also state that in the United States, such an individual act of conscience is protected free speech?

We protect flag burnings, Maplethorpe exhbits, and even the right of that horrid Westboro Baptist group to protest military funerals as protected free speech. Why do we give Islam deference, supplanting our Constitution, and placing this one particular religion above the law of the land? Is it because we as a nation are frightened of the potential consequences from a million radicals?

You betcha.

by fredo on 9/17/2010 @ 8:34am
jinx agreed

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 8:48am
I dunno! I'm guessing it has something to do with predator drones flying in Pakistan and very very shaky alliances with governments (that have either nukes or the majority of the world's supply of light sweet crude) which could fall apart at anytime.

Our freedom of speech is a stick, and the world is a hornets nest. What are you going to do?

Also I am highly skeptical of the 'millions of radicals' number.

by fredo on 9/17/2010 @ 9:19am
What are you going to do?

The first thing we should do is have our President make a speech where he highlights the decision our country has made to embrace freedom of speech. Protected speech is frequently offensive. Explain in the clearest terms possible that American's have the right, within the borders of the US, to say virtually anything they want and engage in any protest they wish to. Nobody is requiring illegimate middle eastern theocracies to extend these freedoms to their own people.

And for the record, the issuance of fatwas predates the invention of the predator drones so I'm pretty sure that has little bearing.

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 9:46am
yes. and every day the president should be on TV taking the pledge of allegiance... and kiss a bible and show his birth certificate.

Could close his nightly tv appearances with the now unused law&order sound FX


by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 9:50am
I endorse this message


by The Jinxmedic on 9/17/2010 @ 10:00am
"Also I am highly skeptical of the 'millions of radicals' number."

I postulated a simple formula of 1% to support that figure. Even if you cut it in half (0.5%) of the lowball total (1 Billion), you still end up with 500,000 dangerous radicals.

This is most interesting, because the most dangerous non-islam terrorist cells of the 1970's (Baader-Meinhof, Red Army Faction, heck, even the Weathermen) all operated as groups of less than 50 people, with operative cells of between 2-7 individuals. Even the Irish Republican Army's provisional forces operated in the low 1000's, with the most active participants numbering under 100. These are very small numbers of individuals, which as groups affected entire societies by the consequences of their actions- and more importantly- by the mere threat of their actions.

What was the main difference between western terrorists and islamic terrorists? Western terrorists were usually not to eager to die for their cause, thus requiring extensive planning for post-mission escape and recovery operations. Religiously-motivated islamic terrorists are generally not restrained by individual survival considerations, and therefore, are less predictable and consequently more dangerous.

Let's drop the 1% figure for a moment and say that only 0.0001% percent of this lowball total (again, total sample of 1 billion) are actually willing (and able) to travel to carry out religiously-motivated suicide attacks- that still leaves 10,000.

Is that an insignificant number? I certainly don't think so.

Conversely, is the fear of angering that "miniscule percentage of radicals" worth sacrificing everything that this country was built upon? Do we throw away our beaconing light of freedom to the world? Do we cower under the covers afraid to stand for our rights, knowing that these same rights will not be upheld by our leaders in the face of the threat by that tiny minority? If we choose to act, do we sacrifice the freedoms of others within our own borders (something that I would never condone) because we perceive them as a threat? What, exactly, can we do about this?

My fear? I fear that this situation will get far, far, worse before it gets better.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/17/2010 @ 10:06am
By the way, I think that the midterm elections are going to get three-sided ugly. (D, R, TP)

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 10:24am
color me an optimist.

maybe if instead of always calling ourselves a "beaconing light of freedom to the world" we started acting like it. That means, Number 1 NO TORTURE!!!! NO 2 stop giving money/weapons to EVIL DICTATORS+WAR CRIMINALS+RELIGIOUS HOLY FIGHTERS. No 3. get serious with an international criminal court.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/17/2010 @ 10:31am
#1 - I agree completely.
#2 and #3 - Not so easy. (Would be nice if it was).

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 10:43am

by marumaruyopparai on 9/17/2010 @ 11:46am
You make a good point Fredo, where can one find the voice of the anti-radical fundamentalist voice of the Islamic community. I refer back to my original argument on this one, the non-radical voice of Islam is simply less sensational and doesn't make for good tv. So if you're relying soley upon your mainstream news outlets for evidence of this other voice, your not going to hear much of it.

I would follow RR's suggestion and begin experimenting with slightly more intellectual news outlets and in the interest of exposure to a larger breadth of coverage concerning the global Islamic community.

What I find ironic is that the FBI has the gall to advise this cartoonist lady to move and change her name but the government is unwilling to offer her subsidy. This seems like a tacit admission on the part of our government that we are simply unable or unwilling to defend free speech or protect our civilians from the threat of TERROR. That's a pretty shocking admission from our government, even if it is a tacit one. Especially considering that we are still in the middle of occupying two countries that we invaded in the name of protecting people from TERROR and defending freedom.

I guess unless it involves storming sovereign nations, freedom and the safety American people aren't worth the investment?

by The Jinxmedic on 9/17/2010 @ 12:08pm
+1 for marumaruyopparai

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 1:16pm
the economist is good too. little right of center... but very rational.

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 1:17pm
marumaruyopparai should run for office!

by jenyum on 9/17/2010 @ 3:23pm
If only some dude with no shirt had come up behind that Seattle artist and been all "Dude, you have no pencil" -- we would not be in this predicament.


by fredo on 9/17/2010 @ 3:24pm
President Obama has elevated the discussion of our first Amendment right to free speech to the national stage. I don't need to listen to "a mainstream news outlet" to understand what he said. I listened to his entire plea to the Florida pastor not to burn the korans. He squandered a golden opportunity to articulate the issues involved. We really are on a slippery slope and pretty soon, if we're not careful, it will be unlawful to say anything not PC about various religions.

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 3:39pm
I love this boing boing comment
"Such an American way to solve the burning the Quran problem. Yoink!"

by marumaruyopparai on 9/17/2010 @ 3:49pm
I don't think first amendent rights were ever up for discussion, but then, I didn't read or listen to Obama's plea to Pastor Mustachio. There is nothing wrong with the president openly condemning a flagrantly inflammatory affront to an entire religious group, especially when our soldiers are currently engaged in an offensive in the backyard of some of that religious group's most militant and radical members.

Bear in mind at the very least that what the president issued was a plea and not an order. If free speech were a question, it might have been an outright demand that the qurans not be burned as opposed to a desperate plea. Considering General David Patraeus's condemnation of the proposed quran burning due to the increased risk it would pose to our deployed soldiers, the president was simply defering to the judgement of military brass and doing what he felt was in the best interest of our troops.

I would rather have a president who pleads for rationality and restraint than one who demands obedience. I feel that my free speech is safe. Nonetheless, as I mentioned before, I wouldn't mind seeing the government doing a better job of endorsing free speech by investing in the protection of those who choose to exercise that right.

by marumaruyopparai on 9/17/2010 @ 3:55pm

I don't think I would ever survive the litmus test for social and political viability provided by media scutinization were I interested in running for office.

But then again, if a Jesse Hill or a Traveller can throw his hat into the ring for election to public office I suppose there's room for anyone who is interested.

I just don't think the world is ready for marumaruyopparai, public servant.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/17/2010 @ 4:49pm
Oh, you can plead for rationality and restraint - that's perfectly appropriate under the circumstances. I believe that fully. HOWEVER-

What I think Fredo was trying to say was that during this plead, a perfect opportunity to explain "protected free speech" to the world was lost. They hate us anyway, what difference would it have made for our President to say, "We as a nation abhor this individual's decision to burn the Q'uran- as a civilized and respectful people, we do not agree with or abide by his decision. However, in a nation of laws, guaranteed to us under our constitution, a constitution which grants equality to all those under our flag- this individual citizen's right to express himself through his exercise of free speech, and as upheld by the highest courts of the land, CANNOT be abridged. It is this freedom that we live for, and indeed, will die to protect".

Now, THAT would have been much more presidential than, "Please don't burn the Q'uran, they'll get all mad at us and stuff". (paraphrased).

by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 5:01pm
Agreed. Yes... and also say that we don't kidnap and torture people.. doh, not so fast!

by The Jinxmedic on 9/17/2010 @ 5:07pm
Someday, we won't. That's why until that day, that part wouldn't have been mentioned in my presidential statement.

by marumaruyopparai on 9/17/2010 @ 6:20pm

Well said sir, well said.

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/17/2010 @ 8:55pm




by NineInchNachos on 9/17/2010 @ 11:15pm
no no no.
the point of building the most powerful armed forces in history is corporate welfare. Missile Shield anyone?

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/18/2010 @ 7:17am


by fredo on 9/18/2010 @ 7:57am
"the point of building the most powerful armed forces in history is corporate welfare" nachos

ironically, our government has a Democratic President and the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress for about four years. If you voted Democratic in the last two elections then you're part of the problem.

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/18/2010 @ 8:10am

by fredo on 9/18/2010 @ 8:57am
Cult leader Jim Jones seemed like a very benign if a bit goofy religious leader. His message of peace and charismatic demeanor attracted a huge following. In retrospect we should have looked a little more closely. Let's not make the same mistake with other cults.

by NineInchNachos on 9/18/2010 @ 11:59am
sounds like you guys could have benefited from jim merritt's "Educations" venn diagram. make sure you vote for the TEA party candidates so the Dems can retain power!

by marumaruyopparai on 9/18/2010 @ 1:44pm
No apologizing for radical Islam Mofo. Even you would agree they can't ALL be radical fundamentalists, right? . . . right. .?

by marumaruyopparai on 9/18/2010 @ 1:46pm
Christine O'Donnell is Sarah Palin's new "Mini Me".

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/18/2010 @ 11:47pm






by NineInchNachos on 9/19/2010 @ 12:16am
(;_ ; ) baby crying.


by Mofo from the Hood on 9/19/2010 @ 12:48am




by NineInchNachos on 9/19/2010 @ 1:45am
gotcha! you admit we're an empire.

yet with THE WORLD as your designated nation, and SCIENCE as your religion... one is immune to such infantile concepts. good riddance!

hey man, if you go around talking like that all the time.. is like hot chick kryptonite yo. where is the love?

by The Jinxmedic on 9/19/2010 @ 7:31am
Mofo is simply trying to bring to our attention that this situation, now given light by the actions of radical mohammedeans worldwide, is far more serious than what we have been led to believe. This will manifest later, when at some point the west's tolerance will be exhausted. When that happens, stand back. It will get truly ugly - you have seen nothing yet.

by fredo on 9/19/2010 @ 7:36am
My friend returned from three tours of duty in Iraq. He told me the women there are treated worse than dogs. This is what we may expect if Islamic law becomes the law of our land. It's easy to joke about this stuff right now but in a few decades, perhaps even a few years the privilege of posting your thoughts and drawings may come to an end. The fatwas and our own President's declarations have really put a chill on freedom of expression.

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/19/2010 @ 8:36am
hey man, if you go around talking like that all the time.. is like hot chick kryptonite yo. where is the love? NIN




by NineInchNachos on 9/19/2010 @ 9:50am
[eye roll]

You're afraid of islamic law coming to america? Newz flash bro: Obama is not a muzzlim!

ACLU is an enemy of freedom of speech? Are you insane!? Wait, I read your stuff all the time... Don't answer that.

That dumb lady didn't HAVE to listen to the FBI. She vanished HERSELF! She KNEW that crazy people were threatening the creators of southpark... and she drew a cartoon because she KNEW it would drive crazy people crazy. She is just unlucky because the media made her into a target. Other people draw Muhammeeed but nobody cares. Freedomz of Speech are still goin' strong.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/19/2010 @ 10:52am
I don't believe that anyone on this thread has postulated that Obama is a "muzzlim". (On the same token, I don't believe that anyone here is a proponent of the "Birther" school of thought, either.) None of these prior comments disparage our President, other than stating that an opportunity was lost to educate the world on our constitution WHILE AT THE SAME TIME expressing condemnation of the particular "mustachioed pastor" in Florida. If he had in fact done exactly that, it would have been a win-win statement, and we would not have been seen as backing down in the eyes of our enemy (and believe me, that is how they consider themselves). Backing down is ONLY seen as weakness within that particular group of cultures.

As long as the ACLU supports and defends ALL free speech issues (which it usually does) we still have a defender in the constitution, even if we don't agree with everything they say. If the organization ever starts to "pick and choose" causes in order to further an agenda, then we will know that the slippery slope has begun.

That fact that we have to have this very conversation regarding the plight of a US citizen WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS, means that the bad guys have won.

Are you actually blaming the victim? ANY woman who stands out, goes out alone, dresses funny, or has an opinion is a target for radical mohammadeans, anywhere in the world. Sharia is already here, my friend.

Last point: Yes, we an an empire by definition. We have been so since the 19th century. Deal.

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/19/2010 @ 11:33am




by NineInchNachos on 9/19/2010 @ 3:50pm
i'm not buying that 'they'll see you as weak' British Laurence-of-Arabia crap. the crazy fatwa dudes will always hate us no matter what. we'll always have conversations about the 'constitutions matter' and we'll always have people crying that the bad guys have won.

nobody is blaming the victim, however, with great power comes great responsibility and stuff.

by jenyum on 9/19/2010 @ 4:50pm
OT: Mofo, is your space bar broken? I find it almost impossible to concentrate on what you are saying because I read an emphasis into all those periods.

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/19/2010 @ 5:36pm


by NineInchNachos on 9/19/2010 @ 6:56pm

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/19/2010 @ 9:33pm
Which is a greater risk to Our Rights?

Those outside our nation who dislike us (rightfully or not)
or Us being unwilling to stand up for and defend Our Rights?

I'll give you a hint... the person in the mirror is a whole lot more dangerous than Osama bin Rotten.

by NineInchNachos on 9/19/2010 @ 11:08pm
it was aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapathyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy that destroyed the cartoonist molly norris! either that or "ida know' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_Circus#...

by marumaruyopparai on 9/20/2010 @ 2:15am
Mofo's use of periods as a manner of separating words is much like his discourse strategy, whimsical, and only barely scrutable.

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/20/2010 @ 3:46am

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 6:51am
As a matter of general respect, decorum, and regular old civility, one shouldn't burn ANY book. I have in no place on this thread (or at any other time) ever condoned burning any book -whether considered by some to be sacred or not- that's the path that ultimately leads to barbarism.

HOWEVER, If we want to have a "religious bigotry hate crimes statute", it should apply to ANY religious bigotry, for ANY religion. And once you open that can of worms, you can't pick and choose which worm is protected, and which worm isn't. They all taste the same to a crow.


by fredo on 9/20/2010 @ 7:34am
Islam is the religion of peace or so we have been told. And yet clerics of that religion regularly issue fatwas calling for killings. Isn't that just a little bit inconsistant with the message of peace?

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/20/2010 @ 7:57am

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 8:03am
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " -From a proposition for the Pennsylvania Assembly by Benjamin Franklin, February 1775.

What we are experiecing now is certainly not a new development, and Franklin's words read as true today as they did over two centuries ago.

by fredo on 9/20/2010 @ 8:28am
One of Franklin's best quotes and entirely appropriate in the context of the current discussion. Thank Jinx.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 8:33am
My pleasure.

by marumaruyopparai on 9/20/2010 @ 8:36am
I bet if Sarah Palin were president she'd of invited Pastor Mustachio to burn a stack of Qurans on the White House steps. That's what America needs now, a no nonsense American who's willing to burn books in the name of free speech!

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 9:01am
Hmmm... ...I don't believe that would be helpful, dontcha know.

(On the other hand, that might finally get this Global Thermonuclear War thing started at last. After all, if we can't have moon bases and flying cars, we should at least have radioactive mutant zombies to fight off. The FUTURE! awaits!)

by NineInchNachos on 9/20/2010 @ 9:15am
I refudiate!

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 9:51am
An update:

In East Lansing, Michigan, apparently it is already illegal to burn Q'urans. Distasteful and insensitive? Yes. But illegal? With the Police Department offering a $10,000 reward "for any information that would lead to the identification and prosecution of those responsible for this act"? Prosecuted? Under what law, I wonder...


If it is considered a "hate crime" rather than a Free Specch issue, does that mean we can arrest Andres Serrano now?


Does anyone else see the double standards here?

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 10:16am
Ugh- "Speech", not "Specch".

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/20/2010 @ 10:43am
So, it;s OK to burn a bible but not a q'uran?

I think we need to be way more "equal opportunity". I propose we have a bonfire with a copy of every religion's holy book.

Look, freedom of speech, etc, etc aren't conditional. You can't say that it's "constitutionally protected" to burn a flag or a bible but it's a hate crime to burn a q'uran. Either all of them are fair game or none are. That's grossly unconstitutional to give certain groups special rights or exemptions from constitutional rights.

I personally don't have any desire to burn any books, but I'm for everything being fair game. If it's OK to burn one holy book, then it's OK to burn them all.

I wonder this: if certain religions are "religions of peace", then why the hell are so many people deathly afraid of offending them? I'm quite sure any faith of peace is bound to have a "turn the other cheek" analogue. But then again, the intent of the founder is rarely upheld after their death. It's easy to think up many examples of "christian" behavior that Jesus (if he is portrayed accurately) would have been abhorred at. I wonder if what's going on the mosques today would have Mohamed rolling in his grave.

by fredo on 9/20/2010 @ 10:58am
"I think we need to be way more "equal opportunity". I propose we have a bonfire with a copy of every religion's holy book." thorax

Thorax, I think you've stumbled on to a solution to the problem. Have bonfires going on all over the place fueled by bibles, seventh day adventist comic books, qurans, whatever.

Here's another problem I'm having. If no one has ever seen Mohammed, if no one knows what mohammed looked like, then how would anyone know how to draw his likeness, or evaluate a drawing to determine if it was mohammed's likeness? How about we start drawing some cartoons about these "clerics" that issue the fatwas? You know, the peace-loving killers.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 11:07am
I'm certainly game for more cartoons.

by NineInchNachos on 9/20/2010 @ 11:34am
important detail left out "The incident happened on September 11. It was found at the front door of the Islamic Center of East Lansing."

you should not burn piles of books on other peoples front doors.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 12:06pm
RR is correct- one should not burn books, period. And for the record, I have never condoned burning ANY book, if only as a matter of general principal- for the path of book burning ultimately leads to Barbarism. (or at least a Ray Bradbury novel).

However, once you agree to establish "Religious Bigotry Hate Crime" statutes, you had better be prepared to have it apply to bigotry against ALL religions, not just a selct few- (or only one, in this case). For once you open up this can of worms, you cannot choose which worm is to be protected, and which worm is not. They all taste the same to a crow.

by fredo on 9/20/2010 @ 12:11pm
"RR is correct- one should not burn books, period"

RR may be correct, but he never said one should not burn books. He said you should not burn piles of books on other peoples front doors.

by NineInchNachos on 9/20/2010 @ 12:17pm
you should not burn any book as the carbon release only exacerbates global climate change and thus the ultimate extinction of human-kind. RR's recommended book disposal method is mulching.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 12:20pm
Fredo- How true. That very statement does imply that it is indeed permissible to burn piles of books elsewhere, or perhap to burn a single book on other peoples front doors. (Then again, how many books constitute "a pile"? This is quite the conundrum. Just think how difficult it might be deciding which religions to protect, and what would constitute a "hate crime"... ...bring on the worms!)

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 12:23pm
RR- I do not condone or recommend the disposal of ANY books, mulching or not. (If you desire third-party confirmation of this, you can ask my wife as to the state of our personal library).

by fredo on 9/20/2010 @ 12:32pm
"the carbon release only exacerbates global climate change and thus the ultimate extinction of human-kind." nachos

This raises an interesting issue. If the world were only to be populated by fear mongering, fatwa issuing, despotic tribal clerics and their brainwashed followers- would that be a world worthy of preservation?

by NineInchNachos on 9/20/2010 @ 1:01pm
Maybe.the.JinxMedic.will.be.kind.enough.to.translate.your.science-fiction.comment.into.english... and I can formulate a better rebuttal?

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 1:17pm
RR is channeling Mofo!

Science fiction comments? Let's try this:

Fredo- option 1: Perhaps Islam can one day go through a new "Golden Age" eventually embracing technology (other than bomb-making) in order to go off-world to the kinder and gentler "New Mecca" of the Pitch Black universe.

by NineInchNachos on 9/20/2010 @ 2:16pm
Dear Friends, you want an informed discussion of reality? NIN News Network recommends this podcast...

"Andrew Bacevich: how war without end became the rule. Andrew Bacevich is the soldier turned writer who�s still unlearning and puncturing the Washington Rules of national security. The rules have turned into doctrines, he�s telling us, of global war forever."


"bob" bless america!

by fredo on 9/20/2010 @ 6:03pm
unusual for any cartoon not drawn by RR to reach 100 comment gold. but you've done it jinx, congrats!

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/20/2010 @ 6:34pm
Got me beat. Think I hit 26 once.

by daubermaus on 9/20/2010 @ 7:39pm

Interesting page.

by fredo on 9/20/2010 @ 7:52pm
thanks daubermaus, an interesting page indeed. apparently it is OK to draw mohammed as long as it's in the context of torturing women.

by NineInchNachos on 9/20/2010 @ 8:17pm
Meh. you should see the sick-o crap they paint on the insides of churches in Italy. It's no small wonder priests are molesting children all over the place...

oh man... if people read this stuff in the future i'm going to have a hard time esplainin myself like Hans Zeiger

by daubermaus on 9/20/2010 @ 10:15pm
"in the future..." my a@@!

That was over-the-top deliberately bigoted right now!

For the record the artist of this very cartoon IS an Anglican priest. There is no excuse for that kind of personalized attack.

I'm done with ever bothering to read what you post.

by L.S.Erhardt on 9/20/2010 @ 10:43pm
Sorry, but any religion that claims women will be tortured in hell for showing their hair to strangers or leaving the house without permission isn't any religion I want to be associated with.

by NineInchNachos on 9/20/2010 @ 11:50pm
ye gods! Did I just take the scary perversions of a select few and make sweeping/blanket generalizations of an entire population of people? One must remember not to do that in polite company. ;p

by NineInchNachos on 9/21/2010 @ 12:06am
in all seriousness (and by seriousness I of course mean absurdity) If i'm going to make fun of pitbull owners, I must also make fun of the pope. I don't do double standards.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/21/2010 @ 6:31am
I beg to differ- I see double standards here all of the time, which I believe addressing that exact thing is the primary point of this thread. One attempts to have an intelligent discussion about serious issues, and the best counter involves subject changing, misdirection, and gross generalization? Did I not say in the beginning that we are looking at significantly less than 1% of individuals, and quite possibly, a number easily as low as 0.0001%? Only in a very strange world can that be considered a gross generalization.

Really, no further comment on my part is necessary, because Nachos has made my point perfectly.

by NineInchNachos on 9/21/2010 @ 8:17am
it's in my nature to fight absurdity with absurdity. I'm chaotic neutral. If you quit now the haters win!

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/21/2010 @ 8:33am

by NineInchNachos on 9/21/2010 @ 8:48am
hey now, no reason to get rude.

by daubermaus on 9/21/2010 @ 9:05am
---ye gods! Did I just take the scary perversions of a select few and make sweeping/blanket generalizations of an entire population of people? One must remember not to do that in polite company. ;p
---in all seriousness (and by seriousness I of course mean absurdity) If i'm going to make fun of pitbull owners, I must also make fun of the pope. I don't do double standards.
---it's in my nature to fight absurdity with absurdity. I'm chaotic neutral. If you quit now the haters win!
---hey now, no reason to get rude.

You are the one who got rude when you casually called Jinxmedic a pedophile to deflect his arguement. You got very personal and very rude with out even seeming to notice and you never actually answered his comments.

Take a step back,

don't read the post for politics - just read the conversation - and maybe man up and apologize.

by NineInchNachos on 9/21/2010 @ 9:43am
I believe you're taking my comments out of context. I no way did I mean to imply that all men of the cloth are secretly raving pedophiles... I mean't .00002% at best! And to be fair to the mighty fresco collection in the holy see, most of the penises are covered with leaves or scraps of toilet paper (making them less homo-erotic). I would also like to apologize to the current pope who was forced to be a Hitler youth against his will.

I apologize to Mr. and Mrs. JinxMedic.

Also I would like to apologize to Fredo and Mofo. I don't know why just yet.

by daubermaus on 9/21/2010 @ 9:49am
Thank you.

by daubermaus on 9/21/2010 @ 9:49am
though apologizing to fredo and MOFO might be a bit much

by NineInchNachos on 9/21/2010 @ 10:08am

by The Jinxmedic on 9/21/2010 @ 11:10am
Poor Mofo- he.is.just.misunderstood.

by Mofo from the Hood on 9/21/2010 @ 9:37pm






by NineInchNachos on 9/22/2010 @ 1:12pm

by NineInchNachos on 9/22/2010 @ 2:26pm
"Now one can the make the case that it is easy to say she should have stood her ground when one's life has not been threatened by the man who is arguably the most dangerous Muslim cleric in the world, and being told by the FBI it is in your best interest to suddenly change your identity. But to what kind of life can Molly Norris now look forward? She can no longer call herself by her real name. She has very likely been forever cut off from family and friends. And while she might be able to draw in the privacy of her own home she can surely never submit her drawings for publication for fear that her works will be recognized. In short, the artist formerly known as Molly Norris is being deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Read more: dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2010/09/22...

by The Jinxmedic on 9/22/2010 @ 2:57pm
That's exactly the point.

(Thanks for sharing that.)

by NineInchNachos on 9/22/2010 @ 4:55pm
"Bukhari says the real threat isn't in Yemen. It's that someone here will be incited by the terrorist in Yemen. The way to combat infectious radicalism, especially when it's based on a false premise, is to be strong, publicly, against it. While not marginalizing an entire faith."


by The Jinxmedic on 9/24/2010 @ 9:27am
Not completely off topic, but here is a post on a Seattle blog (Snark Patrol) that I thought was quite eloquent yet still somewhat confrontational. This is an appropriate way to debate a contrasting opinion through historical illustration and personal anecdote. (And, yes, I did receive express permission to re-post here).

Titled, "We're not Europe, get over it"
"Some people just want to see the world burn. Others, like our current President, don't understand the meaning of the term "American exceptionalism" and cheerfully look forward to us splitting up into little sub-countries like the Balkans. Because we're so smug with our Coca-cola and big cars and not having to stand in line for bread and stuff, like they had to. And look, we're arguing vehemently with each other, just like all internecine wars start.

American exceptionalism (certain presidents and Europeans, kindly make a note) means we're different, not better. European countries (and the Balkans) came about because a bunch of peasants minding their own business got incorporated by successively grandiose warlords into larger and larger tax-territories. Government by accretion. Since they weren't *asked* about joining up with those dog-eating vermin peasants in the next valley they'd been feuding with for the last few thousand years, the glue of comity created by this legal fiction was, shall we say, not very strong. Of course when the heavy hand of authority was removed, or weakened, the natural impulse to draw boundaries sprang loose, much like the recoil spring of a 1911 suddenly released from its confinement. Not that I know anything about that. Or hunting for a violently-ejected bushing cap...

The United States of America, on the other hand, was consciously created by the people. We even say so in the very first words of the highest law of the land. We don't really care much about the strangers knocking at the door wanting in--mostly we just want to be sure they agree with the law we created and the reasons behind it. How can you keep a good ethnic feud going if ANYONE can be an American? We marry around a lot, we move a lot, we make friends wherever we want, and unless they go to the same house of worship most Americans would be quite puzzled to identify their neighbor's religion. We remember that everyone here, even the Native Americans, came here from somewhere else. So, we don't have those ancient boundaries to fracture around. The Balkans had it easy, they'd got it all set up and in place for thousands of years. Plus, with the moving around thing, we have friends and relations and ties ALL OVER the country. I am not splitting to form Cascadia if that means I need a passport to visit my friends in Maine.

There are times when I, too, get tired and just want to pull the plug and go straight to Mad Max anarchy, but it won't happen. And that's a good thing. Even though this slow fingernails-on-chalkboard political process is driving me nuts."

by NineInchNachos on 9/24/2010 @ 9:38am
Ah American Exceptionalism. We certainly are exceptional in the way we gobble up the world's scarce natural resources. Eventually we are going to need to come up with a better explanation to the world than "this is ours because we're special and you're not" Even so, thanks for the read, the writer is certainly eloquent.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/24/2010 @ 9:57am
You are quite welcome.

by jenyum on 9/24/2010 @ 10:28am
The ability to practice whatever religion you like however and wherever you see fit (provided you don't actually commit any felonies in the process) and the ability to piss off people who are practicing religions you don't like, as well as the ability to repudiate people who are pissing off people who are practicing religions you don't like are all part of what makes America exceptional. So, to say that the president doesn't understand American Exceptionalism when he is in fact a constitutional law scholar is pretty damned ridiculous, however eloquently put.

What the hell do you expect Obama to say "yeah I spent all those years teaching Con Law, but f*** it, you can't put a mosque in one of the most dense communities in America, because some people find that offensive." You know what, you're right, screw the constitution. From now on, I'm lobbying for laws against everything and anything that pisses me off. Pass 'em all and let the supreme court sort it out.

by NineInchNachos on 9/24/2010 @ 11:03am
'like' tacoma mama's comment (the president bit and breaking up into different countries was pretty silly)

by The Jinxmedic on 9/24/2010 @ 11:08am
Jenyum- "Pass 'em all and let the supreme court sort it out" -that's what the 9th Circuit does, so I think you should go for it. Sounds like fun! :-)

(I posted Snark Patrol's post, because she shows how to intelligently web-debate without getting personal and attack-y about it- unlike certain pit bull owners. Nothing wrong with silly, if you're nice about it).

by Maria on 9/29/2010 @ 5:08pm
Some commentary in today's News Tribune

"If we leave our artists, activists and thinkers alone to weather the assault, they will succumb and we will all suffer the consequences."


by The Jinxmedic on 9/29/2010 @ 5:16pm
Wow. They ran that in the TNT?

by Maria on 9/29/2010 @ 10:57pm
Yes, it's an op-ed piece from two non-TNT writers, but it was on the top right of the Opinion section today.

I called Maria Cantwell's office last week about this also and they asked me to send them some media/news links. I also called Jim McDermott's office and they promised to call back, but no one did.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/30/2010 @ 8:41am
Maybe, just maybe, people are starting to wake up to the fact that we are facing a credible threat to our way of life? After all, if you don't have freedom of speech, you have freedom of nothing.

by fredo on 9/30/2010 @ 8:50am
The story Maria cited suggested that people who were threatened by fatwas could sue like the abortion providing doctors once did.
I'm not sure how this would work since most of these clerics are located outside the US and don't have much property in the US. But I think it's a good conversation starter as jinx pointed out.

by NineInchNachos on 9/30/2010 @ 9:04am
Editorial cartoonists were endangers species even before this whole boondoggle

by NineInchNachos on 9/30/2010 @ 10:19am
"139 people died."


by NineInchNachos on 11/23/2011 @ 1:19pm
dun duh doooone! www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/us/7-arrested...

by The Jinxmedic on 11/23/2011 @ 1:36pm
Linkie no workie...

by NineInchNachos on 4/20/2012 @ 2:34pm
renegade amish.  news.google it!