Tuesday Links and Open Thread

86 thoughts on “Tuesday Links and Open Thread”

  1. I’d say CNN has gotten the Garland coverage just about right. Blurring out the image was a smart move, and Camerota treated Geller with all the respect to which she is entitled. None. A stark contrast to the warm and welcoming embrace at F&F. Well done, CNN.

    • I don’t think that Geller deserves a “warm welcome”, but she does deserve a certain gravitas for revealing something that is certainly worth revealing and discussing.

      It’s quite confusing that the same people who spoke of freedom after the Charlie Hebdo murders are now denouncing Geller in ridiculously rabid ways.

      The disrespect of sacrilege is protected speech no matter how rude and offensive.

      What makes the murdered cartoonists and Geller’s protest something beyond an exercise in offending for the sake of offense is obvious.

      This is an issue that free societies must confront head-on.

      • Geller deserves our respect and thanks, if for no other reason, being willing to stand up to the creatures who commit murder and mayhem in the name of their religion. Ridicule is a good way to do it.

        • You can respect Geller for putting her life where her mouth is.

          She’s made herself marked in the way that Salman Rushdie is marked.

          By the way, Satanic Verses was reportedly biting in its skewering of Islam.

          • Interesting.

            I have never seen Rushdie say or do something hateful, but I have seen him be heroic.

            I have heard Geller say many hateful things, and it seems I may not have considered that she might have done something heroic despite being hateful. Does hatefulness render heroism impossible? Can any hateful person be at times heroic? Something to ponder over a Pinot Noir.

            I appreciate you provoking this.

          • There are several historical examples that come to mind, but then we start focusing on comparisons involving people and outrages over that rather than speech.

            Again, that’s a priority that you seem to have.

          • “Hate” is in the eye of the beholder. Rushdie wrote a book that was deemed to be mocking of Islam. Ergo the jihad on him. It was provocative and he provoked the haters.

          • Many bullets, from many different sources, in many different contexts. There is nothing all the unique about this time, this place and this circumstance.

          • Bullets can be real or rhetorical or metaphorical but are meant to kill, weather it be speech or freedom or human beings.

          • That’s true enough, and I find another layer of discomfort, to-wit: the looseness with which we use the phrase “free speech”. Technically, legally, we’re only referring to the government not interfering with free expression. You obviously know that. But we obviously value some interpersonal freedom of expression as well. I’m not sure whether that value led to the Amendment or the Amendment led to a more general appreciation for free expression. I only raise that because I think we need to consider our reference point in these discussions. At one of these points, we get the “chilling effect” issue, but it never comes in at the other point. Oddly, the absence of the chilling effect consideration may well make the exercise of expression somewhat more principled.

          • Perhaps that the protections offered by the First Amendment can be rather hollow if the concept is not adopted by us in our daily lives.

          • I have no problem with people being outraged over a remark. I have no problem with their condemning the remark. Asking for an apology. Insulting my ass on Twitter, etc.

            We’re talking of something altogether different here.

      • In some way the survivors of the Hebdo massacre taking offense at what Geller did and offense making a comparison to Hebdo speaks volumes. The Hebdo cartoonists put no one except themselves in danger. Geller exposed a group of people, however small, to danger. I don’t think there is anything remotely noble in what Geller did.

        • How could there have been anyone there who was not aware of the risks?

          You could make the same argument for any protest that could incite violence in opponents and thus endanger bystanders. It’s specious.

          • I’ll leave the absolution of Ms. Geller up to you and the threesome on the curvy couch, Cecelia. I’m just not much interested.

          • On the contrary, you’re far more interested in the “who’s” involved than in the issue of free speech.

          • Remember, Cecelia, this is a guy who told Mike that he’d never post here again. A man’s as good as his word.

          • I’m glad he’s here. He doesn’t tell us to shut-up or stop saying things (in fact we did that to him) like Joe, and he doesn’t get hysterical and delete all his posts, etc.

            I like being countered. It makes me think.

          • I just don’t care for phonies. Especially those claiming to be veterans. He couldn’t be troubled to provide his billet designator code. I guess his dog ate his discharge papers. By the way, they’ve changed since the Cold War, so if he tries to use a current one, we know what he is.

          • In fairness, when I go to ACLU meetings and cocktail parties, the subject of free speech never comes up.

            Good day to you.

          • That’s an appeal to authority that we must accept as true on your word.

            You should understand that we can only truly guage your priorities by the content of your posts.

          • Crazy world where absolution is thought necessary for intended murder victims rather than the perpetrators. Sort of like suggesting women not dress like that because they will ‘provoke’ rapists to rape.

          • What an unoriginal thought, Johnny. Parroting Geller.

            Theologically, I can offer no absolution to the perpetrators. They are dead. It is up to God (or Cecelia, I suppose) to do that. I can merely pray for their repose, and I do.

            And, I offer a prayer of thanksgiving that no one was killed other than the perpetrators.

            I pray for the man who killed them.

            As for the intended murder victims, they need no absolution for being victims, but some of the intended victims, desperately need absolution for the hate that is in their hearts. I pray for them, but perhaps they need some penance before absolution comes.

            But, you’re quite right. The fact I say I like cheese enchiladas must necessarily mean I hate beef tacos.

          • How could I absolve them, TRRE? I’m a woman. I would not have that authority in your church.

          • I think a better example would be the women who protested that mindset on one college campus by marching naked.

            Had they been attacked by a religious fundamentalist offended by nudity would they receive this sort of opprobrium?

          • There’s really not much genuine freedom of speech in a society that wants to shame people into not criticizing/satirizing entire groups because of how a handful of its members might react (while other groups are open season–otherwise why haven’t people demanded “Book of Mormon” be removed from the stage?). I don’t recall journalism class ever teaching me this peculiar notion, though to be fair that time was so last century.

          • That’s what comes of politicalizing all moral principles.

            You exchange inherent truths for political dictates involving whatever and whoever appeals to the elites.

          • Burning an American flag or putting a crucifix in a jar of urine and calling it art and getting federal funding . Free speech for me but not for thee.

          • Put a picture of Mohammed in a jar of urine and watch them really wig out.

          • To you and Marty:

            It may be a mistake to get too carried away by mere symbols in a free expression discussion. Things tend to get distorted.

            Would I burn a flag? Never. Do I get outraged when someone else does? No.

            Would I pull the Book of Mormon from the stage? No. Did I find some of it terribly offensive? Yes.

            But it all stops there.

          • That’s a difference we all…artists…philosophers…anti-theists…clowns…and cranks can live with.

            We can NOT ….metaphorically or otherwise … Live with any other principle.

          • What “all” stops there?
            Because a certain person or group says so? I want that kind of power. I want to sit at the right hand of God and be THE one to determine who says what, what words mean and what actions can be taken or not.

          • I was speaking of my own conduct, Marty. Symbols only work so long and so far.

          • Ah ha. You WENT to Book of Mormon so you DID support that message by buying a ticket.

          • Situational ethics ceased to surprise me two decades ago. As a consequence, I’m not given to much outrage. If I feel outrage coming on, I fix a Campari and Soda. It is a wonderful tonic that mellows out the outrage.Outrage never accomplished anything. Perhaps some of the Radical Islamists need to learn that.

          • BS, you are not interested. Not interested would be making no comments on the situation or not responding to those who do make comments.

          • It’s because it’s Geller and Fox “News” and rightists and all those other icky people not on the approved of list.

          • What an odd thing to say since the first Geller interview I saw was on CNN.

          • Not at all odd. It’s proven over and over by your own words replete with snipes and digs and quotation marks, oh my.

        • I wonder if the families of the cartoonists thought they were only endangering themselves.

          Wonder if the businesses next door thought that. The delivery services, cleaning crew, etc.

          Wonder if that deli down the street does.

        • Oh please. The people in that venue w/ Gellar knew exactly what message they were sending Muslims and the people in our country who are afraid to offend Muslims but not any other faith. Those kinds of people are becoming fewer and were in our country every day.

          I saw a guy from Charlie Hebdo this am on CNN and he was fully supportive of Geller and her message. I will have to look for those Hebdo employees who took offense or wait for your link since you provided none.

    • 8 out of 10; also missed 2 and 9. Also the first “Legends and Lies” I’ve seen. Not impressed. BOR corrects myths but adds narrative that no one could possibly know. A lot like the filler material in his “Killing” books.

  2. Their reverence for Muslims has more to do with how people on Fox & Friends view things than much else.

  3. Today’s most popular links:
    5 extreme makeover
    4 Harris Faulkner
    3 muddled analysis
    2 CNN blurs out
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 FNC touts its tune-in length.

Comments are closed.