"The disciminatory nature of the soup"

Some right-wingers have taken to setting up soup kitchens in Paris, and they only serve soup made with pork, according to the New York Times. Free food for non-Muslims, then.

Parisian police are hot on the case of the insensitive soup-slingers, shutting them down wherever the soup is served.

Who are the real soup Nazis? Who cares about if some folks want to give out some soup? Is soup the new cartoon? Let them eat pork?

Please make it stop.

Wait, is it a civil war or not?

After the bombing of the Shiites' Askariya mosque, and the retaliatory attacks on more than 100 Sunni mosques in following days, people could not wait to say "civil war." But then things settled down.

Or did they?

This Washington Post article says the Baghdad death toll since Wednesday is 1,300 Iraqis. It was previoulsy reported to have been lower.

Note: The article is grisly; I had to look up "garrotted" (strangulation, such as by a cord).

Civil war is a serious term that should not be thrown around. But...

A quick note on the BlackBerry 'crisis'

Just a bit of perspective on the BlackBerry thing: About 3 million Americans own Blackberries; that would be a big number in a European country, but it's about 1 percent of the population here. So most people will not be directly affected.

Of course, the people who do own them are usually pretty important - Congressional staffers, executives, just about anyone in "management." I had thought this made it a rather elite bit of technology, but even 1 percent of population can make up a pretty significant group - even when you're not considering they hold relatively prominent jobs.

I did a little googling and found out other groups which comprise 3 million Americans:

People suffering peanut and/or tree nut allergies
Arab Americans
Felons now out of prison - they can't vote
Truckers - keeping your stores stocked with goods
People who "could have Barrett's Esophagus," whatever that is
Citizens of India living in the U.S.
Jews
People who will suffer an anxiety or panic attack in their lifetime
Commuters who travel 50 miles or more one-way
Morbidly obese folks, um, according to Texasgrassfedbeef.com

Note: Most of the sites I listed these stats from seemed pretty biased. But it seemed interesting to me. This is how I party.

Another angle on the Dubai deal: the Jones Act

I haven't yet heard the Jones Act of 1920 mentioned in discussions of the UAE company seeking to buy U.S. ports, but perhaps it is relevant. The Jones Act forbids any ship other than U.S.-owned, U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and predominantly U.S.-crewed ships from carrying cargo from one U.S. port to another. (That's a lot of U.S.) For "national security" reasons among others - mostly trade protectionist, I would suggest.

The Jones Act is relevant here because those opposed to the administration-supported deal could cite the act as precedent that indicates the national security value of U.S. ports. Of course the administration realizes ports are valuable to security. However, this act as stare decisis could beef up the case that everything relating to ports needs to be "Made in the U.S.A." (Except the cargo from foreign countries, 95 percent of which is uninspected. But that's another subject...)

Of course, the counterpoint is that this legislation was passed in the pre-free trade, pre-globalization era. At the time of the Jones Act, foreign ownership wasn't as common as it is now: the Japanese hadn't yet bought Pebble Beach golf course, Honda didn't yet have a North American Headquarters in Kentucky, and Rupert Murdoch hadn't yet purchased Myspace.com.

A brief note on who gets the credit for mentioning the Jones Act: Daniel Yergin brings it up in his article, "Ensuring Energy Security," in the current (March/April 2006) issue of Foreign Affairs. (The issue is not yet online.) He cites the temporary American suspension of the Jones Act regulations in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to ameliorate the problem of getting oil to U.S. cities when they badly needed it. Yergin did not mention the Dubai deal, of course.

Holocaust denial as a crime

I knew Holocaust denial was a crime in Germany and Austria, but George Will does us a favor and presents an entire list of states with similar laws:

Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

No big surprises, but interesting to see the list.

Will brings up the interesting (but of course not new) comparison between the Western demands for free speech when it comes to cartoons about Muhammad - and many of the same countries criminalizing certain statements about the Holocaust. And, as some Muslims have pointed out recently, there was an attempted holocaust of Muslims in Europe (the Balkans) in the 1990s.

DoD doesn't want to upset a Middle Eastern country; other news on the UAE port deal

The Department of Defense points out that busting the port deal with the UAE could spoil America's pristine image in the Middle East, according to CNN.com:

The announcement came on the heels of comments from the second in command at the Pentagon, who said Thursday that people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Senate Armed Services Committee that blocking the deal could ostracize one of the United States' few Arab allies.

"The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

It's a great point, but when have we cared about ostracizing an Arab state? If we applied that test to all foreign policy decisions, we'd have to pull all troops out of the Middle East and break our ties with Israel. I don't really see that happening any time soon...

Kevin at Dropout/Postgrad has a good point about xenophobia and anti-Arab sentiment shaping some peoples' opinions on this. You know I love PBS, and last night on the "McLaughlin Group," they were right on the money. Pat Buchanan - who is never concerned about being PC - came right out and said it: "We just don't trust Arabs with our ports." At least he has the balls to say it. They all pretty much agreed Hillary Clinton was guilty of demagoguery, and Buchanan said (as I have) that the deal just seems suspicious to "Bubba in Georgia." There's way more emotion than logic behind the opposition.

Perhaps UAE ownership of ports is a security threat. But the politicking on both sides - and the fact that this whole thing would be handled differently if Congress wasn't facing elections and Bush wasn't a lame duck - shows the problems with U.S. politics.

The NY Times reports that European business people don't understand the hoopla in the states.

Richard Dibley, a director in London's Planco Consulting, which advises port authorities, said he was "struck by how strange" the American reaction was, and added that it could be called "paranoia." He described the port and shipping business as "international, you don't get a business that is more so."

Another facet of this issue is the geopolitical value of having a good relationship with the UAE: The country lets us fly planes out of it, and it's less than 100 miles from Iran. There is a little bit about the U.S.-UAE military relationship in this AP article.

A better article about the challenge of reconciling free trade with security concerns is in the Financial Times.

Un bon poulet est un poulet libre, ou un poulet mort??

NY Times article about bird flu in a land of chicken cuisine. Poultry sales are in sharp decline because it's not just wild birds (swans) that have it anymore - domestic birds are feeling fluish as well.

UPDATE: Bird flu in French turkeys is confirmed. 11,000 have been slaughtered already.

Arab Emirate ownership of U.S. ports?

When Michael Savage and Hillary Clinton are on the same side of an issue, you know something funny is going on. I am referring to the bipartisan (though Democrat-sparked) furor over a UAE state-owned company's winning bid on six major U.S. ports. Republicans are increasingly joining the fight, in favor of blocking the deal.

On one hand, it's the Lou Dobbs vs. most other Republicans issue: Does foreign ownership of U.S. property affect national security? Dobbs, of course, says yes. More specifically, though, this is about the ports. Does it matter that a company from a country with a less-than-UK status in the War on Terror wants to own a potentially vulnerable piece of the American border?

What if the Saudis wanted to own a few major American airports?

The seeming role reversal on this (Republicans vs. Democrats), I believe, is rooted in the conservative support for relatively unrestrained capitalism. We see this regularly in China issues. Pat Buchanan and a few others (Savage) have dissented, but they are in the minority of their party.

I do wonder, though, how much of a role a port owner really plays. Fox owns Myspace, a Japanese company used to own Rockefeller Center, and GE has NBC. Has content been affected? It doesn't seem so, but the potential for change - or in the case of ports, security breaches - is what is causing alarm.

Bird flu hits France; gets out of control in Germany

Birds in France have it, birds in Hungary have it, Germany says it does not have the situation under control (honesty: refreshing yet depressing), the second Iraqi person has died from the H5N1, and the 19th Indonesian reached a similar fate.

American experts are pessimistic about our own preparedness. The federal government is recommending stocking up on bottled water and food. No word on duct tape and sheets of plastic yet.




Note: Ready.gov, home of the photo above, is not the U.S. source for bird flu information. That would be the straight-forwardly-named Pandemicflu.gov.

Sorry for going crazy with the links.

This headline is the bomb

The Scotsman is a good paper, but probably could have found a better way to say this:

Israel drops huge financial bombshell on Palestinians

I was thinking the copy editor who wrote the headline had an isolated case of the sillies, but apparently the writer has it, too.

Here's the first sentence:

Israel yesterday fired the opening salvo in an economic war...

"After neoconservatism"

Francis Fukuyama, in the Sunday NY Times, says says neoconservatism is dead.

Note: If you don't know Fukuyama, don't think "liberal" because the article appears in the NYT. This is a respected political scientist who believes in the historical inevitability of global liberal democracy - just not in the forced manner many of his contemporaries have supported. However, Fukuyama does announce in this article that he no longer claims affiliation to neoconservatism.

He describes the historical progression of neoconservatism, suggests its proponents became overly optimistic after the Soviet Union fell, and argues the philosophy experienced a fatal crescendo in Iraq. He is the latest to point out the many, many mistakes in U.S. Iraq policy, but he doesn't provide much in the way of suggestions for cleaning up the situation. (This is not the first time he has criticized how Iraq has been handled.)

I'm not sure neoconservatism is finished, or even greatly changed, but recent adventures in U.S. foreign policy have shown many neocon idealists that 1.) regime change is more messy than many of its supporters apparently realized, as democracy does not simply rise from the ashes; and 2.) even when democracy is in place, the people might choose Hamas. These let-downs are leading Americans to increasingly support isolationism.

The above points are Fukuyama's, but one other that he alludes to, yet I suggest should be amplified, is the consistency factor: When will regime change come to North Korea and Iran? While Iraq arguabley seemed to be the most dangerous of the so-called Axis of Evil, a sense of consistency would suggest the United States should be involved militarily in regime change in the remaining two Axis states.

We realize, of course, that would simply not be possible with the current U.S. military. Yet when democratic peace theory is combined with the "post-9/11" mindset - such as in the neocon justification for the war in Iraq - the possibilities for future military endeavors are truly limitless; we could fight forever.

Anyway, who the heck am I to critique Fukuyama? I recommend the article.

Again with the cartoons? Yes: The Jyllands-Posten editor speaks out

Flemming Rose, the editor of the Jyllands-Posten, has an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post.

Three poigniant lines, out of context:

1. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

2. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.

3. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult.

"Caché ," the film

So I saw "Caché" last night, and it relates to some of the European assimilation issues often discussed on this blog, so here are some comments - slight spoliers ahead.

It's a stalker thriller about an upper-class Parisian family, and the stalker seems to represent certain issues affecting the post-colonial, post-9/11 West. Someone is filming the family's home, then giving them the tapes, often along with odd, threatening notes. Message: they are being watched, and the observer is angry.

Mostly it's a stalker thriller, and we're wondering whose throat will get slashed next. A couple scenes were more graphic than I expected, but it's definitely not only a slasher film. A style note - the camera work, to simulate surveillance footage, is pretty unique.

All the while, though, we're being dropped hints about white guilt, black angst, post-Sept. 11 "Why do they hate us?" questions. (This movie was made, presciently, before the Fall 2005 Paris riots.) I'm going to sound like a snob here, but: the political subtext is probably too subtle for most American audiences, yet obvious if you're looking for it.

As the film closes, we're watching - through surveillance footage - the family's son. This kid is kind of a spoiled brat. I interpret the closing shot to be a warning that the legacy of colonialism, discrimination, anti-immigrant policies, etc., is far from over, and the next generation will still be dealing with related problems.

Overall, it's an interesing film and I recommend it. The message about "Hey, there are some problems with cultures getting along!" is pretty obvious, though, as we see another 15 people killed over Muhammad cartoons yesterday. Good job on that one, guys. Very productive.

George Will on executive branch, force authorization

I really like my PBS post below, but the world moves on, and so must I.

George F. Will, in his column today, discusses the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and explains why it alone does not make domestic eavesdropping legal. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has expressed this sentiment, as have most Democrats. Perhaps the Administratiion will recognize this, and perhaps Congress will work on some appropriate legislation. Bush, as Will points out, can't surf away forever on the wave that was the Sept. 14, 2001 AUMF resolution - it explicitly indicates force is authorized only against the persons or groups responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Anyway, Will begins his piece with the good point that any future such resolutions will be written with Proustian detail - as they should be.

I wrote an opinion column for my university newspaper (here I go again) in September of 2001, reminding readers of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. This resolution, of course, has been brought up many times in the past few years. If only the members of Congress had been reading the three-times-per-week school newspaper of the University of Cincinnati, perhaps the 2001 resolution's wording would have been more clear.

PBS doesn't care! "Here are the Muhammad cartoons again"

Because I posted about this previously, for the sake of consistency I must report the latest PBS no-holds-barred reportage:

U.S. print media has been quite cautious, mostly choosing not to print these things. But as I said, a Feb. 2 report on "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer" showed several of the cartoons in a responsible context. They had footage of a Muslim who was upset that they were originally published holding up copies of the cartoons for the camera as he talked about how offensive they were.

Tonight, however, while Ray Suarez was talking about them, two of them just appeared, taking up the whole screen. The first was the bomb-turban one, the second one was the more gentle one of Muhammad walking.

So no big deal, but it is a big deal in that no one else is showing the things. Who would have thought that sober, cardigan-wearing PBS would bust these things out for the world to see?

Possibly because they're the only ones who can do it without being accused of ratings-chasing or trying to be X-treme.

Conclusion: PBS is exciting because it's boring!

Lawmakers grill Google over "enabling dictatorship" in China

House committees and subcommittees love to give bombastic speeches to folks - and many of the recipients are indeed deserving - yet these hearings often accomplish nothing more than a great soundbite of scolding.

The latest example is about Internet search engines adopting the restrictive standards of the Chinese government.

Note: A great way to see the difference between Google.com and Google.cn is to see image searches of "Tiananmen" in each. Guess which one has more of this:



While Google and the others definitely turned a blind eye for the cash, it's not as if the U.S. government has sanctions in place. Keep shopping at Wal-Mart, Congressman - you can't have it both ways.

Furthmore, one could argue that Google and Yahoo - even kowtowed to the Chinese requirements - are helping reform China by providing more information in the long run. Yes, it is problematic that the search engines conformed to restrictive standards. But if we're going to engage China as part of strategic effort to create interdependency, we can't be surprised when our companies try to increase their profits in the process.

Paul Hackett's decline and fall; Europe's similar path?

Paul Hackett - the rabble-rousing Democrat candidate who almost defeated Republican Jean Schmidt in a traditionally Republican district - yesterday bowed out of politics "forever" because Democrat leaders pressured him out of another race. "Thus ends my 11-month political career," he says.

Yes, it's old news because everyone was talking about it yesterday, but 1.) It's relevant to me because it's in my city and 2.) It speaks volumes about the political system in this country.

My comment at Dan Drezner's blog:

I'm not a registered Democrat, but as an Ohioan and (like Hackett) former Marine, it would have been great to see him in the race longer. I understand why the Democrats did it, but this populist-vs.-establishment struggle won't go away.

As McCain would have told you a few years ago (and still might today), the rigid two-party structure simply disallows candidates that aren't bought, paid for, and sculpted by one of two boring and bloated parties.

Perhaps re: McCain I should have said that even among sculpted candidates, the Party Leaders decide the primaries for the voters, selecting the one they like best.

I realize I run the risk of sounding like "just another" Naderite/Buchananite/Perotite bitter outsider, but such is life. It's refreshing to see a less scripted, less lobbyist-owned politician.

###

On a completely different topic, but same blog reference, Dan Drezner brings up another issue of interest with his "Decline and Fall of Europe" post. Good roundup of views; interesting subject. I always tend to be hesitant to accept doomsday scenarios, so I take some of the writing with a grain of salt. But Europe certainly is in a transition period. No one knows what it's transitioning to just yet.

Bird flu blues

How tragic is it that something as beautiful as the swan is spreading bird flu across Europe - birds now have it in Austria and Germany. Bird cases have been reported now in Iran, which is no big surprise since neighbor Turkey's already got it in both birds and humans. Russia's got birds with it, too.

Not to mention Africa, where things are pretty rough in Nigeria. And African birds migrate back to Europe in a few months...

My supply of bottled water and canned goods is getting low. It's time to stock up again.

Valentine's Day

Two years ago, I apparently was feeling a little conflicted about Valentine's Day and decided to write a column about it for my university newspaper - and packed with as many war/combat/battle cliches and metaphors as I could conjure up.

It's arrogant of me to search the online archives and bring out stuff like this, but what the heck:

###

Valentine's Day: all-out combat
Brian Phillips
Issue date: 2/9/04

Love is a battlefield.

And there's no sniper nest more well-placed, no patrol route more landmine-laden than Valentine's Day.

War is hell, gents.

In case you don't watch TV, listen to the radio, surf the Internet or shop in public, the "holiday" occurs Saturday.

It is George Washington's Valley Forge. It is Hannibal's Alps crossing.

If you don't survive the harsh winter of picking the right gift, if you don't have the elephants to carry you through, watch out.

Ka-bloom.

This could be painful.

A simple stroll through your neighborhood Kroger indicates the gravity of the situation.

If the Viet Cong had lined their tunnels with heart-shaped balloons and boxes of chocolates, they would look like the entrance of Kroger stores this week.

Tunnel rats had Colt .45s and L-shaped flashlights, and all I've got is a headache and a Kroger Plus Card.

I'm just trying to buy some groceries, man.

But Kroger, like every diamond dealer, is just trying to remind men that Valentine's Day has a D-Day significance.

Louse it up, and all you have is a mouthful of Normandy sand.

You don't want to overdo it and freak the girl out.

But you definitely don't want to go too light, like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Buying too small of a gift for a girl on Valentine's day is fairly similar to only wearing a windbreaker during a land invasion of Russia in October.

If you must err, err on the side of buying too much.

One time I believed a girl when she only wanted a quiet dinner at home with a rented movie.

"No gifts," she said.

I accepted her request like the residents of Troy accepted a horse full of Greeks.

While I didn't end up dead or in bondage like the Trojans, it wasn't exactly a Hallmark evening.

If you're not sure of the "status" of your relationship when V-Day roles around, you'll surely find out.

Amor vincit omnia?

Negative.

Sic transit gloria.

And while I'm at it: In vino veritas.

And don't go thinking that this year will go well because of your past successes.

What you hope will be Desert Storm II might quickly turn into a long, hard slog.

It could cost you the re-election.

While some might dismiss this column as cynicism, it's not all bad news.

A well-prepared Valentine's Day could be as effective as the 1983 U.S. landing at Grenada.

Or, if you're hoping for a majestic, heart-pounding crescendo of passion, model your plans on those of the American forces at the Battle of Chapultepec during the Mexican War in 1847.

U.S. Marines charged up cliffs, suffering 90 percent casualties in some units, but were eventually victorious in the "Halls of Montezuma."

People write songs about stuff like that.

For a less dramatic approach, think about Patton's stroll into 1945 Berlin.

The city was already secured for him by the Soviets, he just had to roll the tanks in and hang out.

The bottom line here is to make sure you know your valentine, and know what they'd want.

Gather intelligence.

Ask her mother, ask a friend or subpoena U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter to give you a briefing on the situation.

That way, you're less likely to overdo it.

But while Sun Tzu was probably the first to write it, GI Joe summed it up best: "Knowing is half the battle."

The key is knowing your enemy.

I mean, girlfriend.

###

I really wasn't bitter, I swear! I was exaggerating emotions as a literary device.

Anyway, happy Valentine's Day!

Bad day for civil libertarians in the UK

National ID cards were voted in during the morning, and the UK-wide ban of smoking in pubs and restaurants is expected to be passed shortly. When you go outside to smoke, bring your ID. (IDs won't be required on your person - as long as you can show it in three days. But it made for a funny line, I thought.)

In other news of things working out for Tony Blair, the prime minister had a brush with disaster when the 36-year-old plane he was in lost power right before a Johannesburg takeoff. He's fine, but if the power had failed a few seconds later, it could have been quite bad.

Olympic viewership and nationalism; Or hegemonic apathy?

US TV ratings of the opening night ceremony of the Winter Olympics declined 50 percent from the 2002 ratings, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

12.8 percent of US households with TVs watched Saturday, compared with 25.5 percent in 2002 and 17.1 percent in 1998. Why the overall decline?

Part of the shift since 1998 - I'm guessing - is related to the location of the games. Americans have more interest in games located in the states - such as the 2002 games in Salt Lake City. (1998 was in Nagano, Japan.)

Then why the net decline of five points since 1998? Some factors could include increased media diversification, such as more channels, Internet, etc. That's all I can think of, except:

A decline in nationalism?

I have seen no data to suggest this. Certainly studies of the rates and degrees which Americans identify themselves as Americans have been done. I don't have them in front of me.

But could that be a part? One must consider that the Cold War has ended (no more Red hockey teams to upset), Europe is supposedly melding, and a war against terrorism has us focused inward. War - it has traditionally been something to inspire nationalism, but since we're not fighting a country or alliance of countries, perhaps folks think about them less.

Attribute it to globalization. Even though it's odd that as the world becomes more interconnected, a series of games involving the entire world draws less interest. But what I'm suggesting is perhaps it's because of the way the games are framed: country vs. country.

I do not, I should say, believe we're heading toward world government next year; that countries no longer matter. Not at all. How folks identify themselves, however, and how they view the world, is shifting. I do think this is a factor in the viewership of the Olympics - perhaps abroad as much as here.

As far as abroad, though, maybe non-Americans are watching the games more than before; Maybe it's just selfish Americans caring less about the world. I'd be interested in seeing ratings from other countries.

Perhaps it's simply hegemonic apathy.

A decline in US concern about other countries?

Then again, maybe everyone was just tuned into "Arrested Development" instead of the opening ceremony. I know I was. But it didn't do so well in the ratings, either.

EU threatens US with sanctions; Maybe the bird flu has them feeling down?

The latest news in the Boeing-Airbus trade battle is that the EU said it will reimpose trade sanctions on the US, because the WTO announced today that US tax breaks were unfair. The US has three months to start playing fair.

In other news, bird flu has hit the EU. Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania all have confirmed bird deaths caused by the H5N1 strain of the virus. Slovenia is waiting on lab results for some dead birds near the Austrian border.

Note: Bulgaria and Romania are applicant countries, but expected to join the union soon.

Note 2: Sorry about the bird flu joke. I know it's a serious matter. : (

Cheney's greatest hits

I know no one comes here for breaking news, but I had to say something. Check here if you haven't heard.

This is straight out of the Onion.

UPDATE:

Why didn't I think of this Aerosmith and Nintendo game parody? (Yes, it's work-safe. Enable volume.)

France supports Russia's Hamas talk plans; U.S. shifts?

France said Vladimir Putin's proposal to invite Hamas representatives to Russia for talks is a good idea. However, one French diplomat said France itself won't speak to Hamas. Clever.

At least one U.S. official, speaking to the NY Times, indicated a possible shift in the U.S. non-negotiation policy, saying this (my bolding):

"Our position is not to tell the whole world that they can't talk to Hamas," said a senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "That would be hard to enforce. The issue is less who's talking than what they are saying."

Since the Palestinian people elected Hamas, an approach like that might be more realistic - have a third party take care of business. This might be a good opportunity for the EU, too. Or at least some sort of troika or gang of seven or some other random number.

Meanwhile, an Isreali official said, "Putin is dancing with wolves." Yeah. That Putin is a crazy horse, living in a field of dreams.

Source: This NY Times article.

Wiki-politicians; Muslims (still) mad at America; thanks

1. On Wikipedia as a reference source
This article was kind of buried in yesterday's Washington Post, but apparently staffers on U.S. politicians are burnishing their bosses' Wikipedia entries. This, of course, isn't against the rules, but it brings up more issues with using the site as anything other than a starting-block reference.

Some of the changes are apparently justified. Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) discovered that his Wikipedia entry claimed that "he likes to beat his wife and children." Terry removed that line, the Post writes.

British and other politicians have gotten into the act, according to the Guardian.

Wikipedia's founder has said that's all he thinks his site should only be a starting point before doing real, quotable research. He had to defend the method quite a bit when legendary journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. discovered his own Wiki entry said he was involved in the RFK assassination. (See the Wikipedia entry on the controversy for a bit of irony.)

The big problem with message board-style reference material is that plenty of people are using Wikipedia for serious research. A professor of mine at my not-very-esteemed alma mater, the University of Cincinnati, issued a warning that no Wikipedia references were permitted in research papers. Yet students regularly include them, she said.

2. Some cartoon protesters now including U.S. in rage

I've written previously that the protesters have been unfairly focusing on Denmark, when at least a dozen other countries' free presses - including those in the United States - have published the same cartoons.

Well, they're on to us now.

Some of the previous protests might have evolved into anti-West/U.S./Israel sentiments, but this one in Malaysia seemed to have included it as a central theme. From the BBC:

Friday's demonstration was the biggest in Malaysia's capital for years.

"Long live Islam. Destroy Denmark. Destroy Israel. Destroy George Bush. Destroy America," protesters shouted as they marched to the Danish embassy in the rain from a nearby mosque.

Gig's up.

3. Side note/props/thanks:

Proflific writer and insightful thinker Kevin S. at Dropout/Postgad had some kind words about this humble blog today. Thanks!

Putin plans to invite Hamas up for a chat

Putin, while in Spain, said he plans to invite Hamas to Moscow to discuss the Middle East peace process.

Hamas responded, "Sure, our calendar is pretty open." That is a paraphrase.

Russia, unlike the US and EU, doesn't consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

Only in San Francisco

Some folks turned a metered parking spot into an actual "park" for two hours, and made a video about it. Pretty interesting. Reminds me of the guerilla tree-planting in "I Heart Huckabees."

Found out about that on Moped Army Simon's blog.

Random, but it's a Thursday, so what can you do.

Another day, another cartoon riot

1. CNN explains itself - this time, with feeling.

On the day that Kathleen Parker rips on the U.S. media for worrying too much about offending Muslims - because some U.S. papers didn't mind showing "Piss Christ" - CNN.com changed its disclaimer.

For days, CNN stories about the situation carried this line, or something similar:

CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam.

Today's story has this line:

CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself.

Well! I bet the lawyers and managers spent an hour or two around a dry-erase board coming up with that one. I mean, it's a responsible stance, explained thoroughly, but I just find it interesting to see their explanation expand.

2. Bush speaks
It was good to see Bush speaking out in the above CNN article. He was in Jordan, with King Abdullah II, which adds some cred.

3. Applebaum opines
On another note, the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum addresses two of the points that I previously brought up: 1.) The U.S. has escaped criticism, rioting, etc. pretty unfairly and 2.) Hypocrisy on the left regarding "Piss Christ".

She also see hypocrisy on the right - comparing this situation to that with the Newsweek Koran abuse story. However, I find that a bit of a stretch. The Newsweek story, while having some basis in reality, was not verifiable. That's why they retracted it and ran a full-page apology.

4. I still prefer Jim Lehrer and PBS
As I pointed out in Friday's post, Jim Lehrer got away with broadcasting the cartoons on the evening news - because he did it in a responsible context. There has been no outrage.

What does this mean? We should all be more like Jim.

Newspapers finally addressing Muhammad cartoons - barely

NY Times has its own editorial, and the Washington Post has a guest editorial.

The Times uses most of its space to state that the violence is uncalled for. Hidden in the middle, the editorial casually notes of the cartoons that "Americans still recognize [them] as within the speech protected by our First Amendment."

We assume the Times includes itself among "Americans" - and if we're correct, it's a pretty lukewarm thumbs-up to the free press.

The German guest writer in the Post, conversely, uses his first paragraph to address the fact that his own newspaper printed the cartoons: "It was the right thing to do," he writes.

I wonder if either newspaper's editorial page will actually take a firm stand on the issue.

U.S. media show Muhammad cartoons

Last night, on the News Hour's segment on the controversy, they had footage of a Muslim man holding up the cartoons, voicing his outrage about them. And while he was talking, the camera zoomed right in. Very clever.

Later footage showed a cartoon in a newspaper, but only about 1/3 of the cartoon was visible - the shot was mostly of the headline. You could tell they were very concerned about not being among the first U.S. media sources to rebroadcast the cartoons. Yet, they were.

CNN has said it will not show the cartoons, "out of respect for Islam." Most print media agree, see NY Times link below.

Have other U.S. sources reprinted or broadcast the images? They're all over the web, of course, so perhaps it's not even necessary. It's not like the media have a monopoly over information flow anymore. But one does wonder if they will be shown.

FEB. 4 UPDATE: The U.S. State Department finally addressed the issue, saying basically the same thing Denmark has said - the cartoons are offensive, but we support free speech. Perhaps the U.S. didn't say it as simply as that, for the NY Times framed the situation with the headline "U.S. Says It Also Finds Cartoons of Muhammad Offensive." No big news there.

But fortunately, even though the U.S. slipped in a little "but we also support a free press," no one is calling for a boycott of U.S. goods yet. Also, according to the article, ABC, in its "Nightline" program, became at least the second program (after "News Hour") to show one of the cartoons.

Whispered: Fortunately for us, the outrage has been somewhat unfairly focused on Europe. The United States is apparently just as "guilty!" Don't tell anyone.

A couple more points on the cartoons...

1. At least the United States is out of the crosshairs! (Note to Pat Robertson: SHUT UP.) But seriously, Miguel does bring up a solid point in the comments below: Where are the American newspapers' editorial pages on this issue? Furthermore, where are the U.S. politicians? Are people pretending it's not a "globalized" world - which is supposedly led by the United States - now that a hot topic is spraying some sparks?

2. The EU is almost referred to as a country in a lot of this coverage. And note that the Palestinians took over the EU embassy. There hasn't been an EU declaration on the matter, as far as I know, but I've always said foreign relations force identity integration more than anything. Or, perhaps more precisely: external pressure solidifies internal bonds.

3. Iconic picture, c/o Mohammed Salem/Reuters:

More on the blasphemous cartoons

In the context of this as evidence of arguable insurmountable differences between the West and Islam, two items:

1. As I mention in a comment below, newspapers in the following European countries have reprinted the cartoons: France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and Italy, according to Bloomberg; and the Guardian reports newspapers in Hungary, Norway, Iceland, and the Netherlands have, as well.

[UPDATE posted Friday, Feb. 3: Last night, on the News Hour's segment on the controversy, they had footage of a Muslim man holding up the cartoons, voicing his outrage about them. And while he was talking, the camera zoomed right in. Later footage showed a cartoon in a newspaper, but only about 1/3 of the cartoon was visible - the shot was mostly of the headline. You could tell they were very concerned about not being among the first U.S. media sources to rebroadcast the cartoons.]

Note: A newspaper in Jordan also reprinted the cartoons, and suggested Muslims calm down. Jordan is pretty close to the United States, though. AND: The paper on Thursday apparently withdrew all of its papers with the caroons and the paper's publisher said it will punish those responsible.

2. A Cincinnati newspaper today encourages its readers to counteract the boycott of Danish goods, writing, "It's not asking too much in defense of freedom of expression for us to hoist a couple of cold Carlsbergs and enjoy a toasted havarti cheese sandwich."

Are other U.S. (or otherwise Western) papers calling for support of the Danes? Probably, I haven't checked.

Update: Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post has an editorial on the subject today.

But you know what I'm saying.

Paging Dr. Huntingon...

Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" crossed my mind when this whole Muhammad cartoon situation first came about. But now that the cartoons have been reprinted in France and Germany, the book's thesis seems to gain some traction.

Is it as simple as the Western value of free press vs. Sharian tradition? One is reminded of the riots after the Newsweek Koran desecration story. That wasn't a free-speech issue, but there are some similarities between the situations.

You can find the cartoons here, but it loads slowly.