sexual_chocolate

The Stranger will bring him back.

Why is y'alls so freaked by a picture of a hairy humanoid? Nice legs, nice boobs, varoom!

Way to stand up to Muslim Fascism! Such heroic bravery should not go unnoticed! We as bearers of a Free Society must publish these cartoons repeatedly so as to prove to everyone that we will not be held captive by those who oppose Freedom. We must set an example, and what better opportunity in this fight for nothing less than the Freedom of the world might we find? What better opportunity than the opportunity to publish these fine incisive jarringly humorous and insightful cartoons? Remember: Let Freedom Ring!

Maybe you're right. Perhaps he thought he'd figure it out once he arrived at the church.

But I wouldn't discount the possibility of a change of heart at some point....

Afraid for his life, apparently. And perhaps a degree of political pressure is being applied...

Oh come on, don't be a fool. He was briefed by his press secretary the very morning of the funeral.

Jyllands-Posten is a right-leaning paper with a bias invisible to itself? It had even been labeled a "reactionary provocateur" before this last episode.... So here we have a paper that won't publish offensive cartoons about Jesus, doesn't hesitate to publish offensive cartoons about Muhammed and Muslims in general, yet screams bloody murder about freedom of the press. Very strange. Funny too that initially the editor in charge of printing the cartoons, Flemming Rose, defiantly roared about his decision to print, and now is appearing on Al Jazeera and other stations equivocating about his decision. What I'm starting to sniff out is an ideologue taunting those he dislikes, and hiding behind the law, until the "law break down, dem tings get rough".

I read the above article, but was a little disappointed not so much with its omission of any reference to Hulagu but with your claim about its contextualized explanation regarding the riots: 1. A candle cannot burn once the wax is consumed; nor can it burn if the wick is removed. 2. When one sees the moon and not the finger pointing towards it, one will see neither. Thank you for the heads-up regarding the article though.

Yeah but the blue whale weighs like three trillion tons when it's born, so it's not even relevant.

(Actually, I didn't wait. I like my ballsacks Smoooooove!)

Jeez finally an answer. So women dont like the shaved porno look. Good thing I waited.

It'd be funnier if it addressed whether or not women like shaved hairless guys or not. I personally like shaved hairless women.

I mean hairy on top but shaved everywhere else....

Do women love a hairless man?

I'm saddened that my subscription to WSJ ran out, but the high endorsement will send me to the nearest news-stand, since it's actually a rag I enjoy reading from time to time. And I'm sure that by using what's your bro's name Occam's(!) razor to decide which factors are more important: Something that happened a couple of generations ago at most and is still actively in violation of law and Resolution, or centuries ago and rather abstruse for most, one will not need to refer to the ol' Absurdio Reductum, but thanks for putting it into play! (did you see El Randle throw that TD pass to what's-his-name? Unexpected!) That's one of the interesting things about all of the reading that I did on the Middle East/Islam is that both Western and non-western authors suggested that the these events still plays a significant role in their collective memory. Maybe that's why hamas or some other such outfit has exhumed the reconquest of Andelusia as a theme in their elementary-school offerings. Related article below: http://www.slate.com/id/1008411/ But does this fact override the idea that indeed active injustices are addressable, and other injustices can and perhaps should be talked about, without political recourse per se? Perhaps you see Hamas as a reincarnation of Hitlerite dreams of conquest; I haven't seen evidence of this myself. If Palestine was given Justice (Israeli compliance with UN Resolutions ie. statehood, pre-'67 borders, end of settlements and occupation, and the BIGGIE: UN Resolution 194) and then engaged in non-defensive violent measures, I'd be singing a different tune.

Well you're all evil and a smartass and shit, and I'm kinda sensitive sometimes, but did you notice that I further responded with what could be construed as a rhetorical question? Pretty evil.

I'm saddened that my subscription to WSJ ran out, but the high endorsement will send me to the nearest news-stand, since it's actually a rag I enjoy reading from time to time. And I'm sure that by using what's your bro's name Occam's(!) razor to decide which factors are more important: Something that happened a couple of generations ago at most and is still actively in violation of law and Resolution, or centuries ago and rather abstruse for most, one will not need to refer to the ol' Absurdio Reductum, but thanks for putting it into play! (did you see El Randle throw that TD pass to what's-his-name? Unexpected!)

DJack's arm went out just a moment before the ball arrived. I don't think he pushed off, but I think it looked like that to the ref. If I was the ref reviewing the BR TD, I don't think I could have over-ruled because, as it's stated in the rules, there wasn't "overwhelming" evidence he DIDN'T make it. And whether or not you call it "gamesmenship", I think Stevens dug himself a hole. That's right that's right, sports-geeks unite!

Hitting a little too close? It wasn't rhetorical.

I don't think the officiating was as bad as many are saying. The Jackson TD call-back was understandable if viewed from the angle of the ref making the call; The Ben TD was hard to over-rule, since it was difficult to tell in the replays (ball was covered for a moment) whether or not it barely touched the leading edge of the goal-line (that's all it takes). The one holding call on the Hawks negating Stevens to the one yard line was pretty poor, as was the Hasselbeck "blocking" penalty, but really the Hawks killed themselves. Stevens saying they would win before the game was an idiot statement, one that I personally think contributed to his poor play.... It's actually kinda embarrassing that they bitch about the refs, considering how much better they were than the Steelers, but still managed to lose!

I don't know if the cartoons in question were really working/offending at this level; seemed more that they dislocated any context, taking stereotypical mundane misunderstandings of Arab/west relations, and furthered that misunderstanding. And again I must say that I am not supporting the reaction of the Muslim world (perhaps Jim above hits it right?), but the metacontext certainly allows for the understanding of the reaction, I think.

-- Vatican statement re Mohammed cartoons Can you imagine this quote coming out of the Vatican a few hundred years ago? A quote protecting the religious sensitivities of Muslims? I wonder about the depth of discussion there before this statement was released, and what religious/political considerations, if any, informed it?

Good lord, don't you tire of yourself? Don't you tire of hammering away with the same cynical contemptuous tone masquerading as "humor"? And CBS, you say that Muslims have no right to commit crimes because of the caricaturization and "defacement" of their prophet Muhammed, and yes I would agree, but does not that standard apply to others as well? Does it not apply to the execution of, on many counts, an illegal war in Iraq? Does it not apply to the west's disregard of UN Resolutions 194, 242, 446, and 3236 regarding the west-created state of Israel? Does it not apply to a generations old oppression, manipulation, dictator-propping western approach towards the Arab world in general? Some say I may be reaching with the above comparisons, but I think it's important to understand the context in which any event occurs, NOT as a way to excuse any given conduct, but as a way to perhaps further one's understanding (if understanding is one's goal).

I don't think many would disagree with this in principle, although what the "message" might consist of might be defined more concretely by the above advocate.... Is it really a surprise to anyone the reaction we see regarding the cartoons in question? We are already dealing with a cultural/religious/political rift between the "west" and Muslim peoples; certainly denigrating both the supreme spiritual entity/symbol AND the followers of that entity/symbol in one fell swoop will inflame the passions in a most predictable way! I'm surprised anyone would be startled by this. To understand this is in no way an endorsement of the violence advocated by the "protesters"; I think the principles of democracy and freedom of speech must be protected and served. But I think that a little bit of humility might serve the situation better (as leading politicians in most countries have done), instead of a self-righteous display of western values flag-waving. Just my 2 cents.