FINAL Straw

As the chaos continues over the Mohammed cartoons, might I offer a diversion. My review for FINAL DESTINATION 3 is up. I by no means recommend this film as an antidote to all the stirring of the pot being done by Muslim radicals and the utterly clueless Danish press, but in a world where FINAL DESTINATION has reached its THIRD installment, can anything be taken seriously.

The review can be found HERE

And just because I can't help myself...

A representative of the Danish press corps (his name escapes me at the moment -- probably because idiots are meant to be forgotten) tried to apply some free speech logic to their actions. I'm paraphrasing here... "If we were to take into consideration everything that offended the different religious groups, we would be prevented from expressing any difference of opinion." Again I'm paraphrasing here. I must take issue with this. If you are someone who disagrees with affirmative action, you don't write an editorial featuring the "N" word no matter what free speech guarantees you. If you object to all the cover up of pedophilia in the Church, you don't publish a cartoon of Christ eyeing a little boy. Free speech demands responsibility. The Danish press, in practicing their right, were utterly irresponsible.

Now because this is a balanced blog (except where it comes to the current administration)...


I have a conundrum for the overly-outraged Muslims out there. If it is forbidden to depict the Prophet, how do you know what he looks like? And, if you don't know what he looks like, how do you know it's the Prophet in those cartoons. (NOTE: This is a trick question. The Danish press actually stated that the cartoons were of the Prophet. I'm just trying to come around to a point.)

This bit of rhetoric was supposedly the point of the original article the Danish paper published in September 2005. It was meant to point out the slippery slope of self censorship. "We are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end.", was the point of the editorial. (For more, see the BBC overview HERE) A salient point? Yes. Justification for the irresponsible nature of the cartoons themselves? Not really.

Look, I maintain life is an offense. I'm not trying to be cynical. We are many different people of many different views and tastes sharing the world together. At some point someone is going to offend someone. Maybe it will be foul language. Or a loud necktie. It could even be the fact that your next door neighbor thinks Jesus was just a fantastic rabbi. To self censor yourself to the point where self expression is sacrificed is the antithesis of free speech.

But common decency and respect for your neighbors in no way threatens that freedom. The Danish paper Jyllands-Posten should have known better.


On a thinly related topic, I just want to offer my praise to the speakers at Coretta Scott King's Funeral Service. It's time for those dissatisfied with the state of the Union to speak up and loud. It's also time to force the current administration to listen. Some may consider using Mrs. King's memorial as a platform as bad form. These people obviously have no idea what Coretta Scott King and her husband were all about... speaking out against injustice with the hopes of achieving harmony.

I say this is a thinly related topic to the Mohammed overreaction because I don't believe people are burning embassies over a cartoon. I think they are raging against a Western machine that, with Bush's War as a maiden head, doesn't show Muslims respect. It's like the LA riots over Rodney King. That wasn't about a verdict. That was a rebellion against a state of life.

So let's be the grown ups, apologize for the cartoons and solve the real problems that are allowing tempers to blaze.