Pavilion Digest: February 2006

A plethora of perplexing pavilion posts. The Pavilion Annex thread, the Pavilion Discussion thread, and monthly digests of all messages from the Pavilion.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Mohammed cartoons

Postby David Loftus » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:05 am

Name: David Loftus
Source: unca20060316.htm
It's not censorship. No one is under any obligation to distribute anyone else's art, commentary, drawings, or poetry. Otherwise, we could sue publishers for failing to accept our magnum opus for publication.

If the material were government activity, or some other form of news, then you might want to call it censorship. But I don't recall too many newspapers reprinting the cartoon about Jerry Falwell (or was it Pat Robertson?) that was the basis for his suit against Hustler magazine, either.

That being said, the reaction in the Muslim world -- I haven't read enough to know how widespread it may be, or if it's mainly a few crazed clerics trying to whip up emotion, yet again -- certainly points up something of the differences between our differing realities. Acceding to their emotional response is leaning more toward their view of reality than the ideals of ours.

What's most offensive to me is I don't find hardly any of the cartoons funny.

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

The Mohammed Cartoons

Postby Chuck Messer » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:33 am

Name: Chuck Messer
Source: unca20060316.htm
Okay, I saw the cartoons, and I didn't get most of them. The Danish must have a different sense of humor.

From the article I read on the issue, it seems that no government agency acted to shut down the cartoons or the papers that printed them. So, no censorship.

Still, many muslims are going to be offended when someone deptics the Prophet, even if it's a positive portrait. I just hope this doesn't lead to even more violence.


User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata

Postby Steve Evil » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:23 am

Name: Steve Evil
Source: unca20060316.htm
Those cartoons are nasty. What is the purpose of printing them? What greater good is being served?

All they really do is insult a people's most deeply held belief just for the sake of doing it, and then pretending to be surprised when those people get upset.

Now they're reprinting them enmasse, like a bully who keeps repeating the same school yard taunt long after it's ceased to be funny.

Why don't we print some cartoons of fat Jewish money counters, lascivious negroids with wide nostrils, a twelve year old kid performing felatio on the pope, and Jesus sodomizing Peter. Let's print a double page spread of these in the name of "freedom of speech" and scream "censorship" when the offended parties come knocking.

Not that anyone here in the enlightened West would ever get upset about something like that.


Mark S.


Postby Mark S. » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:40 am

Name: Mark S.
Source: unca20060316.htm
The humor in the cartoons escape me also, they are mostly sterotypical pot shots. As far as I have heard no actions have been taken against the cartoonist, but an editor in France who reprinted the cartoons as an act of support was fired by the papers' publisher when these same clerics brought complaints against the french newspaper. The fact is that the reactionary group over there will look for anything to create a mews event. rally people to their cause and make the West look like the villian. Its called propaganda.

Peter Reeves

Postby Peter Reeves » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:57 am

Name: Peter Reeves
Source: unca20060316.htm
It is understandable that Muslims are offended by these cartoons but it is the height of hypocrisy for them to complain when throughout the Muslim world they see absolutely nothing wrong when Jews are routinely described as being descended from pigs and monkeys and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of their most popular publications.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm


Postby Moderator » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:04 pm

Name: Steve Barber
Source: unca20060316.htm
It might merit pointing out that the concept of free speech isn't all that significant until someone becomes offended and tries to silence the speaker (or "drawer" in this case). As much as I find the depiction to be in bad taste, fundamentally I have to respect and advocate the artists' rights to create -- in the same way I am encouraged by the outcry.

Censorship, in any form, is eventually a majority versus minority issue -- with those in power assuming the right to control content. We're seeing a form of it here in the states with the governmental pressure being exerted on the corporations that control major media outlets (and before anyone argues, let me provide the none-to-sparkling example of the New York Times and the NSA voyeurs). The corporations DO have the right to pick and choose their content according to their own dictates, but they need to be able to do so unfettered by the federal government -- and that's the primary missing element in most discussions of censorship. As long as Fox News doesn't liable anyone I can't agree to restrict their free speech. The rules must go BOTH ways, however, to be effective, and that's where a censored press falls down.

The Danes were right to print their work, and the muslims are right to protest. That's the beauty of free speech. But no government, anywhere, should dictate the tone or content of the comments on either side.

Posts: 386
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:42 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby BrianSiano » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:16 pm

Name: Brian Siano
Source: unca20060316.htm
Steve Evil's comments are pretty close to the point.

It's not hard to think of offensive cartoons that no newspaper would want to publish-- hook-nosed Jews clutching moneybags, rubber-lipped Negroes slavering over white woman, or even limp-wristed gays in flowing lavender bell-bottoms fluttering eyelashes at big, strong heteros. And if they did, there'd be a LOT of protest, and civilized people would expect the newspaper to go through the motions of an apology. (Personally, my attitude is that a newspaper can publish anything its owners want, but I reserve the right to regard them as assholes if they do.)

The only difference here is that the group taking offense has a faction that's willing to use violence more often than other such groups. (And that's not much of a difference, either: here in America, there are factions of religious maniacs who bomb abortion clinics and assassinate physicians.)

So do we choose up a side here? Not easily. I hate the fanatics who've threatened publishers, knifed editors, and murdered filmmakers, and I don't mind their experiencing psychic pain over something so trivial. As far as I'm concerned, European newspapers can publish as many caricatures of religious leaders as they want, and let the believers suffer.

But the newspaper publishers _knew_ what they were risking. Unlike Salman Rushdie-- whose _fatwah_ was without precedent and unforeseeable-- these people understood that protest and violence would follow from their actions. This doesn't mean they _shouldn't_ have taken a stand-- the people protesting the publication of the cartoons are more _wrong_ than the publishers could ever be. But why, oh why, when the stakes are so fucking _high_, couldn't they take a stand on something substantial?

Couldn't they work up a serious investigative article or two about violent, fanatic groups? Couldn't they publish the names of men who'd urged murder in the name of a god? Couldn't they have published a long, detailed treatise on the nonsensical content of religions? Maybe. Maybe they've tried that and been ignored, so they went for the sub-Yippie tactics.

So it's tough to stand with the publishers here. We have to, of course. Heck, if we're supporters of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, we have to understand that this is part of what we signed on for. But I also reserve the right to call them stupid, childish, purblind morons who forfeited their responsibilities as publishers with a cheap and childish stunt.

User avatar
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

fuck the offended

Postby remarck » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:56 pm

Name: Keith Cramer
Source: unca20060316.htm
The picture of Mohammad with a bomb for a turban is VERY apropos given the state of current affairs. People are blowing themselves up in Mohammad's name, in Islam's name. The equivalent would be of a 10th century cartoon showing a berserk horse-riding Templar Jesus slashing away at innocent Muslims during the crusades.

It should offend people, but for different reasons.



Interesting post concerning Ellison

Postby WATCHMAN » Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:18 pm

Source: unca20060316.htm
NOT sure how the conclusion was drawn -- ratings, whatever -- but the title of a recent post, at this URL... ... l&ID=11505


The Most Watched Hour in the History of TV Starred Robert Culp

Los Angeles, CA 90025 January 30 2006

What would you say was the most watched hour of TV, in it's history? This show is also the highest production cost to profit in the history of TV. Why? Because every time it is re-run it gathers a large crowd. And it is re-fun often. Yes, Robert Culp stars in it, but it's not "I SPY".

The answer is "The Outer Limits" episode, "The Demon with the Glass Hand". First airing on Oct. 17, 1964. It was written by Harlan Ellison, and directed by Byron Haskin ("War on the Worlds" '53)

The story concerns a man with no memory who has a mini-computer in his hand. His hand has only two glass fingers and with each new finger that he finds he gets more information on himself and his plight. The trouble is, that men from the future are trying to kill him.

This complex tale of time travel, alien invasion and robotics has SciFi fans standing by and ready to watch it every time it's broadcast, bringing new viewers with them, making it the most watched hour in TV history.

Robert Culp recently played the role of an unscrupulous agent for a rock star in the new audio-book, "Hard Rock Lovers".

Live the James Bond Lifestyle
12335 Santa Monica Blvd. PMB 116
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone : 310-826-0222

Copyright 2006 BIS Inc. All rights reserved.
Broadcast Interview Source, Inc. 2233 Wisconsin Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 Phone: (202) 333-5000



Postby STAN » Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:38 pm

Name: STAN
Source: unca20060316.htm
Yup! I pretty sure HE got his start in writing for television and the movies with THE LIEUTENANT tv series...I'll check the uusual suspects--er--sources to be sure.. Stay tuned.



Postby STAN » Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:46 pm

Name: STAN
Source: unca20060316.htm
I checked looks like HE got his start with the Loretta Young vehicle called LETTERS TO LORETTA,in 1953 (HE would have been nineteen at the time)

User avatar
Harlan Ellison
Harlan Fucking Ellison
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 10:24 am

Postby Harlan Ellison » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:15 pm

Source: unca20060316.htm
NEVER wrote for "The Lieutenant."

And it's one-post-a-day, Stan.


User avatar
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:54 pm

Name: Rob
Source: unca20060316.htm
The uproar over the 12 cartoons in the Danish newspaper is a trip. I havent seen them, but one is described as portraying Mohammed with a big bomb as the top part of his head. I read an accompanying commentary insisting that it was not witty satire but rather an explicitly racist cartoon akin to the depictions of Jews as rats in the early years of the Nazi regime.

The problem I have is that, symbolically, it is NOT inaccurate in depicting the seeds of Islam. Muhammad, like most religious zealots, was a mass murderer among many other things. Just read a detailed bio, and you can sense a certain pertinence in that cartoon: As Muhammad grew in power, he began to use violence to obtain his desires. He ordered the murder of many people. He himself did not go out and commit the murders; he had men who were willing to do his killing for him.

He had marched upon Mecca with an army of 10,000 soldiers. These men were tough, dedicated Muslims. The Meccan leaders did not think they could defeat Muhammad's army, so they surrendered to him. Muhammad did not destroy Mecca, or massacre it's inhabitants, but he remembered some of his personal enemies, and ordered their execution. Muhammad hated some of these people only because they had mocked him years earlier.

So, that cartoon doesn't seem racist to me necessarily so much as comment on the seeds of Islam.

Sometimes outrage is a prodigy of ignorance.

I wont add anything else since I havent had a chance to examine the OTHER cartoons in the batch. Im only implying that the their intent could be entirely misconstrued in a knee-jerk reaction (what else is new?) because the facts arent known.

User avatar
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:57 pm

Name: Rob
Source: unca20060316.htm
Muhammad, that is.


Thank You Rob

Postby S! » Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:50 pm

Name: S!
Source: unca20060316.htm
that is why I posted links to the images in the first place. people in the US haven't seen these, they are being censored from us. piling ignorance on top of ignorance is NOT a good thing.

I agree with most of what Steve Barber wrote. And Brian Siano.

And I am actually sorry I ever made that post. I didn't mean to rile people up so much. Please return to more pleasant thoughts and discussions of good jazz and whatnot.


Return to “The Art Deco Dining Pavilion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests