Last week, NewBusters informed you of the hypocrisy behind 25 of America's newspapers opting not to publish an "Opus" cartoon which could be perceived by Muslims as being offensive.
Much of the discussion at the time concerning the matter was just how innocent the Muslim reference seemed to be, and how absurd the decision not to publish the comic strip was.
Well, the second of the two cartoons was published Sunday (h/t Hot Air).
*****Update: Charles Johnson's take on this issue, as well as a fabulous Cox & Forkum spoof of Washington Post's position follow after the break.
Does anybody see anything that should have made the papers in question at all fearful about the content?
*****Update: Charles Johnson says, "The only thing remotely offensive about this strip is its complete lack of humor."
Even better, here's Cox & Forkum's view:















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Truth?
September 2, 2007 - 12:12 ET by acumenDoes anybody see anything that should have made the papers in question at all fearful about the content?
Truth?
how absurd the decision not
September 2, 2007 - 12:14 ET by botghow absurd the decision not to publish the comic strip was.
also how biased the editors at these newspapers truly are. The blind lead the blind, they can't even see it can they?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Birds of a feather...
September 2, 2007 - 12:38 ET by third eyeLast time I checked, controversy sold newspapers...I guess that isnt the case in 2007.
BOOM!
September 3, 2007 - 11:35 ET by babooApparently "selling with controversy" occupies a lower rung on Maslow's hierarchy of need than "not getting blowed up by backwards Islamic Fundamentalists."
I love that we live in such a FREE world! Thanks, Islam!
My Paper Ran It
September 2, 2007 - 12:52 ET by rbm411The Star Ledger ran the cartoons. I was shocked.
Not So Far-fetched an Idea After All
September 2, 2007 - 13:03 ET by BacchusOpus (aka, Berkeley Breathed) is perhaps onto something - lookie here from Variety.com:
That's not to say porn is the answer to "straighten out the middle east" but what if it does give us a clue that arabs are not so different from the rest of us after all? I quite frankly don't think arabs are as offended by the west as some Muslim organizations, like CAIR, would have us believe.
Shame on those newspapers that had the comics banned.
--
* Variety.com: Porn site fosters Mideast relations
http://www.variety.c...
(h/t - HotAir.com)
Human
September 2, 2007 - 15:49 ET by mattmNot to diminish the gist of your point, (and we can take hope from it) but all this shows is that the Arabs are human, which isn't necessarily a good thing.
My opinion..
September 2, 2007 - 19:02 ET by BacchusIn my opinion, without their rage enablers most arabs would be as content as everyone else in society, and in that respect being human is quite acceptable. It's the inhumane types--al Qaeda, radical extremists--that are not acceptable.
To illustrate, here's another interesting link I just read, again courtesy of HotAir.com.
IndyStar.com: http://www.indystar....
I thought it was funny, and
September 2, 2007 - 13:14 ET by general companyI thought it was funny, and as somone said at HA, if this is offensive to you then you deserve to be offended.
The media needs to quite catering to what .10% of our population. They certainly dont seem to mind offending 50% with every issue.
Yeah, but....
September 3, 2007 - 12:08 ET by GrannyGrump42That .10% is willing to actually blow you to teensie weensie bits, and take out your family, friends, and everybody who works in the same building with you.
I'm not saying that we, as a society, should cave in to these troglodytes, but individuals still have the freedom to opt out of painting targets on themselves, their families, and their workplaces.
Tough I think Breathed is in more danger than the editors of the newspapers in question.
granny
September 3, 2007 - 12:17 ET by botgbut individuals still have the freedom to opt out of painting targets on themselves, their families, and their workplaces.
doesn't that depend on their profession? The editors could sell fishing supplies in Denver if they choose. While being 'journalists' and 'reporting' what is really happening they have a moral obligation to not duck issues.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
granny another thing
September 3, 2007 - 12:23 ET by botgwelcome to the boards have fun
be safe in South Korea
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Maybe it was tomatoe on the gals head
September 2, 2007 - 13:13 ET by Lame CherryMaybe it was the tomatoe on the gals head or what looks like a tomatoe as tomatoes are quite controversial in being both a fruit and vegetable and I can see if Muhammed has not yet spoken on whether women can wear tomatoes or not Muslims would be outraged
That doesn't make any sense and none of it does.......a Muslim ticked off like all liberals every day looking for something to scream about.
PS Yes I know tomato is tomatoe liberal friends.........I utilize Queen's English just like Dan Quayle so you can eat that too.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I agree with Johnson's
September 2, 2007 - 18:24 ET by motherbeltI agree with Johnson's view: it's not even funny.
Just looked at this week's
September 2, 2007 - 22:09 ET by Tom1969caJust looked at this week's strip.
My reaction: That's it?
~~~
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them!
I would like to thank
September 3, 2007 - 03:07 ET by BlazerI would like to thank Muslims everywhere for reminding me Opus was still in the newspaper.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Be wery, wery, sensitive
September 3, 2007 - 10:25 ET by Mica the MagnificentLiberal editors all over the country will be calling their reporters asking them if they ate any pork before filing their story.
Don't want the Muslims to read a story written by someone who just ate a sausage, you know.
Be wery, wery sensitive. Haaaa. - - -Elmer Fudd, editor
liberal weakness
September 3, 2007 - 11:03 ET by CatherwoodNo, we shouldn't be surprised at all that these newspapers refused to run this innocuous cartoon which, by the by, lacks any laugh stimuli. These newspapers are run by, edited by, and published by liberals. By nature they are weak. They have no backbone, no balls, no desire to advocate. They follow the liberal, socialist agenda of appeasment, multiculturalism, and weeniism. We who fight their battles for them must understand this. They rely on us to protect them while they deconstruct America and everything it stands for.Hey, I don't mind fighting for them They're weak and need support from stronger men. We can only hope that someday they will realize that standing up to the enemies of America is the right thing to do.
You can't say they have no
September 3, 2007 - 12:16 ET by lnthompYou can't say they have no desire to advocate, but all the rest is true. They have no trouble advocating for the liberal view of politics, multiculturalism and ANTHROPOMORPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Years ago I was attending a
September 3, 2007 - 14:04 ET by m4ster chiefYears ago I was attending a Navy school at the Naval Training Center, San Diego. Also there attending schools were a group of Saudi Navy guys. They lived in the Chief Petty Officer's quarters. Navy chief takes 12-18 years to achieve...a Saudi father would purchase the rank for their sons, average age 21-23. They went crazy in San Diego.
Most bought cars, big Caddys or Lincolns, and somewhere they obtained these huge, round "Dept. of Navy; Recruiting Command" appliques that normally went on recruiting vehicles. They stuck these on the doors of their cars, and "Go Navy" bumper stickers on the bumpers and trunk lids. And they had lots of girlfriends...usually as big as their cars. They liked things "BIG."
For them, rules were made to be broken; loud parties at night in room, with women present. Cooking in rooms, strictly forbidden but they did it...vile smelling stuff. The only thing they didn't have was a goat to stroke. Couldn't discipline them because they were "guests."
When they graduated and left, their rooms had to be professionally cleaned, sprayed for roaches, fumigated, and repainted. That showed me, and many others, all I need to know about Saudi Arabians. They are vain, egotistical, hypocrites, perverts...those guys are now probably "Religious Police," beating women who accidently exposes her nose in the street. So are they "human?" Yes, disgustingly so!
Edit: To correct spelling.