Dive into the archives.
- Freedom of Speech Anyone?
UPDATE: You can watch the movie here. For now.
The world ticks me off. I’m trying my hardest right now to stay objective, and not sound too rushed or bitter, but I’m not sure if that is possible.
Free speech is the subject that I’ve chosen for my first rant. Free speech, that wonderful freedom that only exists in the mind of some liberal congressman somewhere in another dimension. Sure, free speech sounds nice. It even looks nice on paper. But do we really have free speech? Is there really such a thing? No. The answer is no. Did you catch that? No? Well I’ll say it again, there is no such thing as free speech.
The problem with free speech, or the idea of free speech, is this: Free speech isn’t a universal freedom. No, what is ‘free’ speech, and what isn’t ‘free’ speech is decided for us by someone else. And, sadly, that ’someone else’ is usually influenced by the world. Perhaps you aren’t following me at this point. That’s okay, just stick with me a little while longer.
You may remember the Muhammad cartoons controversy from 2005. In case you don’t remember, there were a series of cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper depicting the prophet Muhammad, who according to the Islamic religion is never supposed to drawn, or sculpted or depicted at all. The cartoons were subsequently printed in several national newspapers. It spawned massive public outcry by the muslim world, and violent protests that included
"setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City (source)."
The level of ridiculousness of that story is enormous. Burn buildings and riot in the streets because someone draws a picture of your prophet? Really? How many riots would take place and buildings and cars be blown up if the Christians did the same thing anytime somebody made fun of Jesus?
Perhaps it was the memory of that incident that sparked my bitterness when I read about a new film called Fitna. Fitna is an extremely controversial anti-islamic film that depicts the Koran as inciting violence and terrorism. Apparently the movie shows a selection of Suras from the Qur’an, interspersed with newspaper clippings and media clips to illustrate how the Koran and Islamic-based terrorism are related.
If you go to the film’s official website right now (or at least at the time this article was written) you will see a message from the hosting company saying that the site has been suspended while the hosting company is "investigating whether the site’s content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy."
Another website showing the film, LiveLeak.com, also had to shut down the site:
Saying that it was a "sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else," LiveLeak.com has shut down the Dutch website showing the anti-Koran film Fitna….
…LiveLeak said that after the 15-minute film began showing, it received threats that it believed "could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff."A sad day for freedom of speech is right. Whether or not you believe that the Koran incites violence, not allowing this film to be shown is not freedom of speech.
Right now, you can see a famous 1989 photograph by photographer Andres Serrano called ‘Piss Christ.’ A photograph, which was paid for by the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts, that depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of artist’s urine. ‘Piss Christ’ was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s ‘Award in the Visual Arts’ competition. A competition that is supported, by the way, by the NEA, a United States Government agency.
Or, if that isn’t your cup of tea, you can go to youtube and watch a guy actually pee on a cross in a toilet.
That is the world we live in - one where it is okay to pee on the cross, but not okay to draw an image of Muhammad. Gosh, even mentioning the name Muhammad could probably get me killed. I guess if the Christians would start rioting in the streets and blowing up buildings they might get a little respect. Too bad they only believe in peace. Oh wait, doesn’t the Koran only promote peace? Maybe you should go watch Fitna to find out. Oh wait, you can’t. Because it was taken down.
The message I have received loud and clear is that freedom of speech is only for those who are politically correct. And if you are not politically correct, then you need not apply.
Update: A few links relating to the Fitna movie:
Pat Condell, an outspoken atheist, has a few words to say about the recent Fitna controversy. I rarely agree with Condell, and I don’t even agree with everything he says in this video. Being an atheist, some of what he says might be based on his anti-religion bias. But it still worth watching.
The Fitna website was hacked (before it was taken down by its hosting company.
Apr 2, 2008 · category: political, rant
Posted by Tom Collins
- America gets her first blind governor
History is being made, as New York swears in its (and America’s) first blind governor. All it took was a little prostitution ring - oh, and for the previous governor of New York to be caught up in said prostitution ring.
Look around, America. Look at your new governor of New York, David Paterson. Look at him, America, as he can’t really look at you.
(via wonkette)
Mar 14, 2008 · category: political
Posted by Tom Collins
- Larry David chimes in on the Hillary Clinton phone ads…
Larry David saw the Hillary Clinton ad. And he, for one, does not want to see Hillary pick up the red phone.
I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call…and I was afraid…very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don’t care if it’s 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don’t want her talking to Putin, I don’t want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don’t want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere — somewhere far away, where there are…no phones.
Mar 8, 2008 · category: political
Posted by Tom Collins
- A letter written by Martin Luther King, Jr. from prison in 1963
I came across this picture, and an accompanying letter posted on flickr today. The letter was written by Martin Luther King, Jr. from a jail cell in Birmingham to a group of clergymen who opposed him.
It is unclear why King is in jail, but the picture and letter are both quite moving. In his Author’s Note, King tells (us) that he wrote the letter (which is very long) “in the margins of a newspaper”, and then continued onto scraps of paper, “and concluded on a pad [his] attorneys were eventually permitted to leave [him].”
His reason for being in Birmingham? Quite biblical:
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I. compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
What is even more interesting is King’s description of how they prepared themselves for non-violent demonstrations. They did not merely ready themselves to not be violent, but they taught themselves to take violence, and turn the other cheek, as it were.
We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves : “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” “Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?”
King, in answer to the letter’s question of “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” makes this extremely eloquent and still relevant statement:
The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Mar 5, 2008 · category: Culture, political
Posted by Tom Collins
- Meltdown
There was an interesting article in this month’s GQ on the merits of Nuclear Energy. The article is based around the 1979 meltdown at the TMI Plant at Three Mile Island. And, more importantly, why that single event shouldn’t shape our view of Nuclear Energy. But unfortunately it does.The author, Wil S. Hylton, spends an extensive amount of time touring the Plant:
The inside was like nowhere else in the world. It is tempting to say that if you were to wake up inside, without ever having seen a power plant, you would know instantly where you were. Pipes the diameter of a Volkswagen bus and painted in glossy primary colors stretched along the walls and the ceiling, springing into the room at ninety-degree elbows before shooting upward to the floor above or down to the one below. Hoses the size of anacondas coiled their way around corners and over door headers, and stop valves that looked like nautical steering wheels were strapped to the walls with tags to identify them. Everything was polished and reflective under bright lights, and the air seemed to shiver from the pipes’ vibrations. It was like being trapped inside a giant air conditioner.
The most interesting part of the article, though: The carbon footprint of a nuclear plant is precisely…nothing.
Mar 3, 2008 · category: Articles, political
Posted by Tom Collins
- William F. Buckley
Considered the father of modern conservatism, Buckley was the articulate, acute, and always-entertaining pundit with whom many had a love/hate/hate relationship. In the era of O’Reilly and Coulter, it’s safe to say we’ve lost a legend in the urbane and bright voice that Buckley used to elevate political discourse into the twenty-first century.
(via BuzzFeed)
Feb 29, 2008 · category: political, random
Posted by Tom Collins
- My response to “Violator: A Series on Abe Lincoln”
This a response to the previous entry. Read it here.
There are so many inconsistencies, half-truths and omissions in Judge Napolitano’s speech that I find it peculiar that you chose to use that as your introduction on the subject.
The first comment I will make is this: To judge Lincoln on what soldiers under his control may have done illegaly has no legitimacy. Do you know how many people were under his command? That is the same as saying that Abu Ghraib was Bushs’ fault. Bush wasn’t there, he didn’t over see or approve of what was going on. And in the same vein, it isn’t as if Lincoln was standing there in front of the soldiers as they were breaking the law and approving of what they did. Maybe he did approve, and maybe he didn’t, but you cannot make a blanket statement that Lincoln’s soldiers did wrong, so obviously Lincoln did wrong. That’s just poor logic.
Secondly, Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus:
To start, Habeas Corpus is not invoked in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. It is an assumed law. Therefore, it was not exactly unconstitutional for Lincoln to suspend it. This was a war, a massive civil war, if you remember. Lincoln was not walking down the street one day when he thought, hey, I think I’ll suspend Habeas Corpus. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation’s capital surrounded by hostile territory.
Judge Napolitano also failed to mention that Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States also suspended Habeas Corpus, and not only that, he delcared martial law as well.
The Judge also, it would seem, forgot to mention that the United States Congress passed a law during WWII that suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus for unlawful combatants.Bourbon, I look forward to your series on Abe Lincoln, but try to include a video with more substance next time.
Update: In regards to PacMan’s comment that “If the President in Chief isn’t responsible for the actions of his soldiers…” I do agree that he must take responsibility in that all-encompasing way that a President does, but that doesn’t mean HE did it, nor did HE have any literal responsibility for it. It is ridiculous to assume that every time a soldier (or any government figure for that matter) goes out and does some dumb ass thing on his own that it’s the President’s fault. That is just ignorance.
Feb 28, 2008 · category: political, rant
Posted by Tom Collins
- Why the hell does every celebrity think their opinion matters?
Take, for example:
Talk show host Ellen DeGeneres made a surprise appearance by video uplink at a Hillary Clinton rally on Monday evening, energizing the young audience and tossing Clinton a few inside-the-beltway questions she might get on a Sunday morning talk show. Clinton took several questions from DeGeneres, who led off by jokingly asking Clinton if she would consider banning glitter. Then the comedian put on a straight face and turned to the presidential horserace.“As we all know,” Degeneres noted, “Obama has now won 11 states in a row. What needs to happen to change the momentum?”
Don’t misunderstand me, I like Ellen. I like her when she’s dancing around on her talk show, because it’s funny. But what does being famous have to do with wisdom? Why should we take the opinion of celebrities just because they’re famous?I mean, first it’s Oprah with Obama. Now it’s Ellen with Clinton. What’s next, Martha Stewart for Romney?Oh well. You can read the rest of the article here, if you so desire.
Feb 27, 2008 · category: political, rant
Posted by Tom Collins
