"Got clue?"

The cartoon below which ran a couple of weeks ago was pulled by, among others, the Washington Post. Matt Welch of Reason.com has a round-up of perplexing and downright bizarre explanations from newsie editors around the nation for not running
Wiley Miller's Non Sequitur offering.

(please click to enlarge and if that doesn't do the trick, please click here for the Reason.com story which also has the cartoon)



You have the standard "deliberate provocation" defense and some editors not running it because they didn't "get it", as in, they did not think it particularly funny. That got us to thinking how it was that Paul Conrad survived for so long as a cartoonist and won so many awards for being one of the bitterest and un-funny political cartoonist of all-time, but we digress.

For the benefit of the newsies, we're going to break down this cartoon, "Where's Muhammad?" in a clear and concise manner in which we hope the newsies can keep up.

1. The fact that Muhammad does not appear anywhere in the cartoon alludes to the controversy over depicting the image of Muhammad. So, in a sense, what is provocative about it other than the newsies' insistence that it is? In that respect, then, the newsies comically parody themselves.

2. The fact that people will be feverishly looking for any signs of Muhammad and thusly for an excuse to become outrageously outraged where one simply does not exist makes a mockery of this whole situation.

3. And the irony of the fact that newsies are refusing to run this cartoon is summed up in the banner across the top of the cartoon. Get it, newsies? By your own actions, you are now part of the humor of the cartoon. Again, thanks for playing along.

In fact, this cartoon becomes self-referential to a degree that it's damn near meta-. And because of that, it is one of the most brilliant cartoons we've seen in sometime.

But here's the response to not running the cartoon that blew our mind:

Said Alice Short, an L.A. Times assistant managing editor: "If they had produced a 'Non Sequitur' cartoon that said 'Where's Jesus?' I probably wouldn't have wanted to run that either."

Good Lord. Is this woman really that stupid? Because, Alice, you blithering idiot, if it was "Where's Jesus?" that would not have made any sense. We aren't aware of any beheadings or fatwas by Christian extremists because of depictions of Christ. See Point #1 above.

We wish we had a subscription to the L.A. Times just so we could cancel it.

And they wonder why they're losing credibility and readership.

Exit question: Are the newsies the densest creatures to roam God's green Earth or are they simply so petrified of the religion of peace, they only sound like they have an IQ a few ticks above a glass of water?

Everybody draw Mohammed Day

We totally forgot... we're playing catch up.


Relax, jihadists. You all and you're bass-ackwards and intolerant 8th century anti-liberal, anti-semetic, sexist and homophobic ways aren't in our cross-hairs today, it's so-called champions of free speech of the West like Comedy Central and now Apple that fold like a cheap lawn chair when it comes to "the religion of peace".

In what is sure to raise a ruckus, comedian / filmmaker / app developer Emery Emery recorded a phone call with an Apple App Store rep when his iSlam Muhammad app was pulled from the App Store after one day. The highly entertaining conversation in its entirety can be heard by watching the "video" above.

iSlam Muhammad apparently depicted images of the prophet Muhammad (forbidden by Islam) and outlined disturbing passages from the Qur'an. It's surprisingly similar to BibleThumper, a Christian-bashing app that remains in the App Store.

Just a couple of days ago, we blogged about Apple denying an app for a Congressional candidate that simply stated Henry Waxman's voting record. And now this. Pathetic.

If, in the name of equality, Apple also pulls BibleThumper that's only exacerbating the problem as Apple will give tacit approval to the notion that any criticism of any religion is off limits. Of course, Apple is certainly free to do what it wants just as are the consumers.

The older we get, the more stridently free speech we become. We're not sure whether this is a reaction to what we see as increasing restrictions on speech or, to borrow a favorable phrase used for pols in D.C. who drift leftward over time, "growing in office". Probably a little of both.


H/T: Hot Air

Suffer for their art?

Not Comedy Central.

The new (proposed) cartoon series depicting Jesus Christ living in New York city that is being pitched by Comedy Central proves our point that they are completely spineless and hypocritical.

We couldn't understand all the praise being heaped upon Comedy Central for their alleged edginess and risk-taking. This latest development confirms their risk-taking is highly selective.

Worthless pukes.

At long last....

... a Kathleen Parker column we can get behind.

The truth is that Americans love their free speech and have had enough of those who think they can dictate the limits of that fundamental right. Americans also love humor and the irreverence that underpins the joke.

You might say irreverence is our national religion. It keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously and from killing one another over differences of opinion. Cartoons get under our skin in special ways, driving past our defenses and aiming right for the heart of our self-importance. That's why we respond so emotionally.

Barring the occasional offensive punch line, humor is a mostly pleasant test of our allegiance to founding principles. Think of it this way: The degree to which one can tolerate ribbing about one's most deeply held convictions is the degree to which a society can remain free. We honor that notion through our laws and our sense of humor. We may not all laugh at the same things, but most understand that it ain't personal.

It's a spectacularly beautiful morning here in San Diego. As we prepare to lay some wagers on the Kentucky Derby later this afternoon, we hope your morning is budding in similar fashion.

Forget Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington for a moment. On May 1st, May Day, the Communist 4th of July, let's remember the laborers, farmers, blacksmiths and cart wrights of our own that are not celebrated like the aforementioned but still suffered and died for the cause of freedom and liberty that has resulted in the prosperity we now enjoy today.

Washington didn't make it across the Delaware by himself. Who are those people in that famous picture? Would we have the courage to be one of those people?

We're sure we are missing something and there is indeed a significant Revolutionary War veteran's memorial somewhere but if not and even still, perhaps we can fashion May Day into something other than a celebration of collectivism and promotion of lawlessness that it is today.

Not so random thought of the day

If there is one positive aspect to emerge from this whole "South Park"/censorship kerkuffle, it is that there is still some modicum of respect and decency reserved for traditional old-school values. In a society where mocking and ridiculing traditional religious values is so commonplace as to be merely drive-by in nature, where any sort of blow-back or defensive reaction by the aggrieved barely has time to gain traction before the next sacred cow is being scandalized.

Thank god Matt Stone and Trey Parker have led the way in restoring some sense of civility to the pop-culture airwaves. That they have shown the proper amount of deference and respect is admirable as you don't get much more old-school and traditional than Muslim extremism.

It's a rare occurrence these days where this culture's cutting edge satirists, comedians and polemics display restraint, nay, refuse to make mention nor depiction of a hallowed leader of a strain of a religion that stones homosexuals, murders "infidels", mutilates genitals and beats and/or ostracizes female victims of rape. Surely, stonings, murders, beatings and honor rapes are all family values we can get behind.

A big shout-out to Matt Stone and Trey Parker of "South Park". They were there when we needed them most!

Because we (still) can

The Danish newspaper, Politiken, in response to a jihadist shakedown apologizes to Muslims for their reprint of the Prophet Mohammed pictured here in all his bomb-throwing glory.

And then there is this from Mark Steyn:

During my difficulties with the Canadian Islamic Congress , some leftie commentator would occasionally wonder how it came about that some right-wing loudmouth like Steyn got to appoint himself the champion of free speech. Well, that's because, as Politiken's weaselly "settlement" makes plain, when it comes to upholding bedrock principles of liberty before their avowed enemies, the nancy boys of the Left fold like a cheap Bedouin tent. The Islamo-leftist "alliance" is a pantomime horse in which the Left plays the rear end and Islam sets the direction and pace.

Seriously. You know you’re in trouble when it’s a bunch of goose-stepping, fascist righties that are the most consistent defenders of free speech.

Thousands of Catholics not taking to the streets to riot in protest

On the week of feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Playboy’s attempt to be racy and cutting edge falls on its face. Hell, no one even reads the magazine for the articles anymore. If their soft-core format fails to elicit the desired amount of shock and awe these days, may we suggest instead Mohammed and a half-naked 12-year old virgin on the cover. We predict a spike in circulation and a Q score boost in the untapped Arab-world market.

Catchin' up with Ezra

A happy (?) ending to yet another example of bureaucratic thuggery was achieved yesterday as the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint of discrimination filed against Ezra Levant by the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities for reprinting the Danish cartoons of Mohammed some 2-1/2 years ago.

Whew…. There was a lot of time spent by some very diligent civil servants in determining whether or not Levant had actually committed any crimes and Levant himself shelled-out some coin to defend himself against this and other lawsuits against him that are still in progress…. so you would think Levant would be pretty happy, no?

Not quite.

Pardeep Gundara – a second-rate bureaucrat, a nobody – had to give me his approval for me to be allowed to go back to my business. For 900 days I was in the dock, waiting for this literary giant to pronounce his judgment on me. And I found favour in his eyes – but barely.

Sorry. I don’t give a damn what Gundara or the HRC says. Getting his approval is not a success. I won't legitimize his arrogant "authority" by saying "thank you, master". I'll say: "who the hell are you? Besides a busy-body bureaucrat?"

Look at his rationale for acquitting me: because the Western Standard met Gundara’s home-made tests of reasonableness. We published the cartoons in “context”; we published letters that “criticized” them; and my favourite, the cartoons weren’t “simply stuck in the middle” of the magazine. Gundara must have thought for ten whole minutes to come up with that list of journalistic do’s and don’t’s. And – phew! – he likes me. He really likes me!

Sorry again, I don’t give a damn if he likes me. In fact, it rather creeps me out that a whole squad of teat-sucking bureaucrats spent 900 days inspecting me and the Western Standard. I positively want to offend them. In fact, that’s pretty much the only test of my freedom: can I do exactly what Gundara says I shouldn’t? I’m not interested in publishing recipes or sports scores. I’m interested in bothering the hell out of government.

Did we ever mention how much we love this guy?

Levant later references the Rev. Stephen Boissoin who was “sentenced” never to speak about homosexuality again and wonders why it is he got off the hook but Boissoin did not. Levant suggests that he was just too big of a pain-in-the-ass and his star turns in his YouTube videos of the AHRC “hearings” made the AHRC look petty, subjective yet intellectually feeble all at once… all adding up to one huge PR nightmare for them. We would tend to agree but if they decided to cut bait, what took them so long? Oh yeah… we did say intellectually feeble, did we not?

We’ll try to dig up the dirt on Boissoin because his treatment at the hands of the AHRC was perhaps even more egregious than that of Levant’s.