April 14, 2006

4/14: Comedy of Errors

Thought cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad only caused controversy across the pond? Think again. Comedy Central's supposed decision to edit this week's episode of "South Park" set off a firestorm. However, another story continues to pick up steam: Mounting calls by retired generals for the dismissal of Defense Sec. Don Rumsfeld. The left generally joins the bandwagon, while the right generally questions the motivations of the, er, generals -- and their book publishers. But there are notable and surprising exceptions on both sides. Along those same lines, other bloggers take on CBS News for analysis of a poll that shows Americans' mistrust of Islam rising.

Several bloggers offer the latest roundup of news and views on Iran. Others pitch in on rumors of a former House Maj Leader landing at OMB after he resigns from Congress (yes, that one). And still more debate a maverick's conversion to the mainstream of his party. Any of these stories could jump to the top of the screen over the weekend. We doubt, however, that discussion of the Book of Judas will crop up.

CARTOONS: They Censored South Park ... You Bastards!!

Yesterday we noted some complaints about Comedy Central having censored the image of Muhammad in an episode of "South Park." We added that we thought it was part of the joke and assumed that there wouldn't be much more to say on the issue, considering how many major issues are in the news right now (immigration, Iraq, the Libby case, Iran, Abramoff, etc.). Well, the discussion only grew, fueled in part by an AP report which says Comedy Central did, in fact, censor the episode. Michelle Malkin, who had closely followed the Muhammad cartoon-related violence in Europe, also picked up the topic, ensuring more widespread conversation. When we noted it was probably a joke, we said it would be terribly ironic if it wasn't. And it is, considering many of the points raised in the episode. In fact, some who blog on the topic cite the show itself in arguing for why the whole episode should have aired uncensored. But the debate is not just over what was censored, but what wasn't -- namely, a scene where Jesus is shown defacating on Pres. Bush and an American flag. Also, some blame "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone more than the network.

Malkin: "I was just happy to see someone, anyone, in the pop culture world confront some of the fundamental issues raised by the Cartoon Jihad for a mainstream American audience." Later, she solicited new alternate logos for Comedy Central. Stephen Spruiell was one of the first to confirm that the network did in fact censor the Muhammad scene. Jim Lindgren has the official line: "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." Later he posts a full interview with South Park's exec. producer. Irish Trojan's Blog points out that a clip purporting to be the uncensored Muhammad scene is fake. Later he speculates that "this whole thing may be a publicity stunt, with Comedy Central and its 'spokesmen' and 'statements' all part of the joke." He notes a previous April Fool's Day episode prank and says "they might be working the blogosphere up into a mighty lather, only to start next week's episode with something totally unexpected, like, oh I dunno, Muhammad randomly appearing at the very beginning of the episode and saying 'Just kidding!'" He also notes that Muhammad was in a previous episode (but that was before the Denmark outbreak). Wizbang also thinks it's still a hoax: "Matt and Trey, with the willing (or unwilling) participation of Comedy Central executives are experimenting with the blogosphere. ... They're probably watching the discussion unfold and getting a good laugh out of it... or some fresh material..." Wikipedia claims Muhammad is actually shown in the opening credits.

Some of the commentary: Flopping Aces: "Overall the episode was pretty funny, not as funny as it usually is, but good. The story isn't the whole episode tho, it's the fact that the Comedy Channel would puss out and bow to terrorists because that is exactly what they did by allowing those who use terror to dictate what can and cannot be shown on their network." INDCJournal notes that there have been few protests in the U.S. but jokes: "Think of all the Comedy Central employees in the Comedy Central offices in Syria, Iran, the Gaza Strip, and Pakistan." Protein Wisdom: "Naturally, they write off their cowardice to 'cultural sensitivity' -- but as I've noted here a thousand times already, when you surrender free speech to an interest group who claims to hold the only legitimate authority on how its narrative can be expressed, you have effectively done away with both the idea of free speech and the idea of tolerance in its non-bastardized form." James Joyner: "They will apparently make fun of Christians and Scientologists but yet they are afraid to incur the wrath of intolerant Islamists. Which, again, was the very topic of this two-part episode?"

Mary Katherine Ham: "The statement that Comedy Central concedes it's all right to show Jesus defecating on Bush and an American flag, but it's entirely inappropriate to show Mohammed at all? That is powerful, and Comedy Central should be utterly ashamed of itself. I'm proud of the South Park boys for going to extra mile to make them ashamed." Betsy's Page: "Trey Stone and Matt Parker deserve kudos for tackling this and calling out all those in the media who have acceded to the threats of Muslim protestors around the world. Unfortunately, Comedy Central didn't show the same courage." The Malcontent: "To think, a silly little cartoon on basic cable about a redneck mountain town does more to defend the constitution than such self-vaunted press institutions like the New York Times and CNN. What an extraordinary world we find ourselves in." Right Wing News: "If we don't have the guts to post these cartoons here in the United States because we're afraid of extremist Muslims, how can we ask moderate Muslims living in the midst of these radical Islamists to stand up to them on other issues?" Carol Platt Liebau: "[I]t's hard to cheer a program that shows Jesus defecating on an American flag (even though, frankly, His image is plenty strong enough to take it -- and so is the flag's). But it's also impossible NOT to admire people like Matt Parker and Trey Stone, who are willing to stand up for free speech when so many are cravenly ceding their rights." Hugh Hewitt: "I don't know whether to cheer or jeer. On the one hand, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to mock anyone's religion, or to lampoon their religious leaders. And I don't think, on the cusp of Holy Week --or any week, actually-- the creators of South Park struck a blow for religious tolerance. On the other hand, their approach has certainly highlighted the issue of self-censorship."

Captain's Quarters clarifies: "Those who decry this as censorship are mistaken. ... Censorship requires government action, and none came into Viacom's decision. The problem is better cast as corporate cowardice, the extent of which appears to be growing by the week at what used to be as cutting edge a channel as possible for free cable TV." He suggests Parker and Stone head to HBO." Newsbusters: "My guess is that "South Park" isn't going to last much longer given the disputes its producers and home channel are going through. Stone and Parker seem to be quite unafraid of letting their discontent with Comedy Central be known. I wonder how long the Viacom suits will tolerate it?"

A few voices wondering what the fuss is about: PoliBlog wonders: "Should we care?" Don Surber: "Conservatives have bigger issues than whether some TV show is offensive enough to the Koran."

Meanwhile, California Conservative and others note MTV's use of a cartoon Jesus, based on this CNS report.

RUMSFELD: Going To Leave It All Behind And Face The Truth?

More retired generals are calling for Rumsfeld's ouster, and Ret. Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack is added to the chorus this a.m. by the New York Times. Many on the left continue to point to the news as further evidence of the demise of the situation in Iraq. The News Blog, on the latest Gen. to come forward: "Swannack led the 82nd during the first months of the occupation. He retired after commanding the premier division in the US Army, when that job was almost certain to lead to both higher command and another star, for a reason." Cenk Uyger: "The generals have seen the mess we made in Iraq up close and it isn't pretty. They realize these guys in the administration have no idea what they're doing." Bark Bark Woof Woof: "The president has always said that he would listen to the generals who lead the the war in the execution of the war. So why is he ignoring them now?" ParaPundit: "Note that when these guys rip on Rumsfeld they are saying that US strategy and tactics in Iraq are very flawed. Note as well that these guys say what they say from reitrement. Officers serving at high levels can't be as frank. The recent retirees provide an indication of what the serving officers think." Taylor Marsh, Rubber Hose, Dan Drezner, Amygdala and Stigius comment. Righty Jawa Report's conclusion: "It's time to fire Rumsfeld." Billmon thinks he knows why everyone's coming out now: "It's obvious why so many of Rummy's enemies are crawling out of the woodwork now -- they're hoping to improve the odds that the field marshall wil be swept away by the same broom that removed Andy Card and that is said to be hovering over the posteriors of [Scott] McClellan and John Snow." And Blanton's and Ashton's examines the WH's response to the generals' calls: "The White House team is working hard on their method. The method lately is to address a different story than the one the press is reporting and pretend they are addressing the story." Think Progress also notes that Ret. Gen. John Riggs told the Washington Post that Rumsfeld out to be "cleared out" as well.

Like those calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, those opposed to the idea cut across party lines as well. Lefty Prarie Weather has an alternative view: "Rumsfeld has been arrogant, misguided, and can properly be blamed for much of what went wrong in Iraq. But he's not the only one in civilian leadership who's been wrong. And the last thing we want is a military which finds it's in a position to exert political power. If the military want to kick in with their opinions, then they should do so more honorably, as serving officers. Maybe the best venue, which I believe they have a right to demand, is an open meeting of a Congressional committee. But there's something about retired military, safe and sound, at no risk of losing pensions or jobs, going directly to the press..." Big Lizards is similarly skeptical, and lays out a number of reasons, some overlooked, that the generals may not be as independent as we think. Riehl World View rebuts Swannack's interview on CNN. Political Pit Bull: "These generals have certainly earned the right to express their criticism, and I applaud them for doing so, but the media needn't be so freaking breathless (nor the blogs). Furthermore, as far as I can tell, all of the criticism focuses on events that have occurred early in Rumsfeld's tenure--before he, twice, offered his resigation to President Bush and was, twice, told by the President that he wanted him to stay." Gates Of Vienna is more blunt: "This bunch of talking heads, wanting face time on television, are a disgrace. They undermine the men they left behind and they ought to be told so." John Cole: "Remember that Rumsfeld's intent when he took over was to radically re-structure the military (plans since abandoned in earnest- 'Retreat hell! We're just advancing in a different direction'), so there is some ingrained ill will amongst more than a few individuals." Defense Tech interviewed one of the generals, John Batiste, last year, and now criticizes his attacks on the admin "from the safety of retirement." CounterColumn: "The three generals whose opinions matter most -- Former CENTCOM boss Tommy Franks, his Deputy Commander [Mike] DeLong, and the current Chairman of the JCS General Peter Pace, are vocal in Rumsfeld's defense. Apparently, they didn't have a problem with him." Blue Crab Boulevard: "How many people want the military to stay the %$^%$% out of politics? Inquiring minds want to know." Outside The Beltway details the history of generals who mouthed off at the commander in chief. Glenn Greenwald takes a sarcastic look at those attaching the generals' motives, but concludes seriously: "Attacking the motives -- not the arguments or judgments, but the motives -- of a bunch of retired Generals, all because they expressed criticism of the administration's war efforts, gives you a pretty good idea of how these Bush supporters are feeling. Desperate and scared."

The Belmont Club thinks there's a step missing from what the generals are saying: "Surely the entire point of critics must be to change Administration policy into something else. To change the course. Into something that will be better; something that can be carried out by Rumsfeld's prospective replacement. Yet notably absent from discussion is the answer to the question: change it to what?" And The Moderate Voice notes that calls for resignation may not be successful: "The hallmark of this administration is not to give critics what they want on personnel changes when they demand it but eventually give them something, which is always explained as the person leaving on their own volition."

IRAN: Not Quite Gettin' R Done

New York Times reports that IAEA chief Mohammed El-Baradei failed to reach an agreement with Iran over its continued nuclear program.Power Line boils it down: "We have only two options -- tolerate a nuclear Iran or take military action to prevent that outcome." In The Bullpen notes the changing debate: "It seems quite strange the talk from the past few months has shifted dramatically in this nation regarding Iran's nuclear intentions. Just a few short months ago, we were debating whether or not Iran actually wanted to use their nuclear program for peaceful means. This seems to have been quashed, and rightfully so I might add." The author dissects what the debaters are currently concerned with. Riehl World View: "If you've noticed, from right off the bat, this Iran go round has had none of the subtlety of confronting Hussein's Iraq." The Times of London's Gerald Baker, writing at Real Clear Politics, examines the current state of global politics and concludes: "Does anybody really think, when the hard decisions have to be made to face down the next threat, that anyone other than the US will be in the coalition?" Left I on the News blames the Bush admin for the built-up rhetoric: "If that was Iran's only "ambition," this would be a non-story. Which it would be, were it not for the war-mongering U.S. government and U.S. media." Bill Scher at Huffington Post: "So far, the neoconservatives have done a good job of re-running their Iraq playbook and framing discussion on Iran, by laying out these premises: 1. Iran is close to getting nukes. 2. Iran's President is crazy and irrational and committed to wiping Israel off the map. He can't be reasoned with. 3. Bush is trying real super hard to get the UN to do something about it, but if they won't..." USS Neverdock offers a direct response to HuffPo and the entire left. So does Riehl World View. American Future, Decision '08 and The Glittering Eye offer roundups of opinions from around the web.

WHITE HOUSE '08: What Of The Maverick?

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was in IA 4/13, and naturally raised some eyebrows. Betsy's Page, noting that he skipped the caucuses in '00. "This man is serious about getting the nomination in 2008 and he may well get it because the 'anti-McCain' vote will be divided among several other candidates. And, I bet that there are enough moderate Republicans in Iowa would vote for McCain and wouldn't let any silly grudge about his having skipped their precious caucuses eight years ago influence their vote." Brothers Judd: "The 2008 race ends in IA if he wins, because he'll carry NH easily. No one's ever won both for the GOP and lost the nomination that I can recall--even Reagan lost IA and W lost NH." Carpetbagger Report, meanwhile, gets into the debate about whether McCain is repositioning himself as a conservative, or if he has been all along.

Meanwhile, Joe Gandelman wonders if a 3rd party candidacy is viable. "So far there's no one on the horizon. In fact, if you study third parties they have served mostly to (1) inspire major parties to co-opt some of their measures and eventually put them out of business, (2) serve as spoilers (sorry about that phrase Ralph Nader but it's true, as you illustrated in 2000) that merely siphon votes away from one major party and help the other major party to win. ... A third party? A nice sentiment. But the 'rigged' system will have to be changed first."

DELAY: Coming To A Gov't Office Near You

Responding to yesterday's report that Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) may be headed to the Office of Management and Budget, Paul Kiel and Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker note: "Josh Bolten, who's just been tapped to replace Andy Card as White House Chief of Staff, reportedly wants an outsider to replace him at the Office of Management and Budget. The necessary qualification? Well, you might say he needs an expert at moving money around. Let's see..." Prairie Weather: "I guess it depends on how his relationships with the Justice Department and the Travis County District Attorney progress. I mean, he could wind up sharing a cell with Karl Rove -- or sharing a large office on K Street. America is indeed a great land of opportunity." People's Republic of Seabrook took yesterday off, and spent the day writing about his hometown Congressman.

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: CBS In Poll Position

Accompanying a new CBS poll that shows a rising mistrust of Islam is this image, which gets a number of conservative bloggers worked up. Little Green Footballs: "Get ready for mainstream media to start pushing the 'Islamophobia' scam even harder." Atlas Shrugs thinks the poll's analysis "implies that the writer is morally superior/smarter than 4 out of 5 Americans. Which, of course, the writer very much believes." Outside The Beltway also has bad impressions about the article. While USS Neverdock blames the cacophany over cartoons negatively depicting the prophet Mohammed for the rise in Islam's negative ratings, In The Bullpen takes a look on the brighter side: "there is something positives for Muslims to take away from the poll. Respondents were almost as unfavorable of Islam than they were of Mormons, and thank God you're not Scientologists. People really hate those guys." Jawa Report, Danny Carlton, Jihad Watch, Hyscience and Transterrestrial Musings comment.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Founders Forgot To Include The Right To Insult

Patterico's Pontifications had an interesting take on the "South Park" debate, and the idea of free speech in general, that was worth separating out. "One of the justifications for printing the offensive material is that if we don't exercise these particular free speech rights, we'll lose them. Let me speak freely here: that's crap. I'll grant, of course, that South Park or the Danish Cartoonists have the right to print and say what they like about whatever or whoever they like, even if it is offensive, without retaliation from private or public actors. But the tenor of the discussion as I am hearing it implies not only a right, but an obligation to insult things, in order to preserve the right to do so."

LEST WE FORGET: Nothing Tastes Better Than A Hamburger On Good Friday

Considering the fact that a new blogmaster will begin crafting this work on a regular basis next week, we wanted to point out our own personal favorite non-political blog before we lose all editorial control. Waiter Rant, written by an anonymous waiter in NYC, is brilliant, thoughtful and insightful, blending humorous stories with theological and philosophical musings. We really enjoy it. And, in honor of Good Friday, you may enjoy this post.

Posted by at April 14, 2006 12:07 PM