What will come of this shooting in France?

[PB the Deplorable]

...  Have you ever listened to one of Sarah Palin's speeches?  It's basically a political standup routine that mocks and criticizes a wholly imaginary "Left" as being unpatriotic and hating the country, Constitution, and military personnel...

Gee, why would anyone think that about the Left

[PB the Deplorable]

You can't have the PUSA marching around Paris for simple security reasons. The security detail attached to the President is huge. We'd be listening to Fox News bitch about money wasted on a trip to Paris.

Fortunately people like Netanyahu, Abbas, Hollande, Merkel, most of prime ministers and presidents of the rest of the European countries, leaders of many other countries outside Europe, the head of the EU, and all the rest, apparently don't need security and were able to make it.

[Juan]

I find it amazing that anyone would defend Obama in this case, when the administration itself admitted that it was wrong.

They haven't received their update to the post-Protestant, neo-Calvinst catechism.


On another note, we hear screeching asking where are the good Muslims.  It hasn't been widely reported, but a Muslim employee of the Paris grocery store hid 30-customers, mostly Jews, in the store freezer and saved their lives.  He deserves commendation.

[Yorkshire pud]

They haven't received their update to the post-Protestant, neo-Calvinst catechism.


On another note, we hear screeching asking where are the good Muslims.  It hasn't been widely reported, but a Muslim employee of the Paris grocery store hid 30-customers, mostly Jews, in the store freezer and saved their lives.  He deserves commendation.

Although it's understood why Charlie Hebdo staff have put the reported cartoon on this weeks 3 million print run: 1000 in English. It seems a bit over crass to insult all Muslims when right now they don't need to sway another to hate anything non Muslim. It's all very well newspaper editors thinking they're showing solidarity with the rest of the forth estate, but when the terrorist walks into the paper's reception, it won't be the editor he shoots. It will be the receptionist or secretary.

[Juan]

We see this kind of insult all the time.  Think Serrano's "Piss Christ."  I'm uncomfortable with going out of my way to insult religious people, but a lot of people find great sport in it.  Freedom is for the distasteful as well as for those with taste.

[Zetaspeak]

Isn't that story about 25 years old,. We Christians always want to play the "We get offended too" card but when our best example is something that happened a quarter of a century ago. I guess we don't have it too bad in recent times. If it such a regular occurrence for Christians than why is Serrano piece constantly reference, I would guess it stood out because it was so uniquely offensive.

I have no problem with satire of any religion, but it usually in a form of a satire magazine or show/cartoon. But there seems to be as push/questioning why aren't these Muslim caricatures in mainstream or news publication.

How often do we ever see mocking portrayal of Jesus in front of a newspaper just for commentary sake (we do see it a lot in comedy and satire but not serious news outlets) I can't even imagine seeing WW2 German propaganda anti-Jewish style caricatures in any newspaper or magazine cover today. It would never make it to a newsstand, and for good reason.

[Yorkshire pud]

Isn't that story about 25 years old,. We Christians always want to play the "We get offended too" card but when our best example is something that happened a quarter of a century ago. I guess we don't have it too bad in recent times. If it such a regular occurrence for Christians than why is Serrano piece constantly reference, I would guess it stood out because it was so uniquely offensive.

I have no problem with satire of any religion, but it usually in a form of a satire magazine or show/cartoon. But there seems to be as push/questioning why aren't these Muslim caricatures in mainstream or news publication.

How often do we ever see mocking portrayal of Jesus in front of a newspaper just for commentary sake (we do see it a lot in comedy and satire but not serious news outlets) I can't even imagine seeing WW2 German propaganda anti-Jewish style caricatures in any newspaper or magazine cover today. It would never make it to a newsstand, and for good reason.

I'm an atheist so have no axe to grind on behalf of any religion. I was listening to the local radio station driving to work this morning, and the presenter was inviting listeners to call in with their opinion on the latest offering from Charlie Hebdo. He interviewed a journalist who is also a senior lecturer at the local university; she and her partner had taken a break last week and coincidentally the events unfolded as they got to Paris (their holiday destination)..Her view was a bit split; she said that no-one should be prevented from saying what they wanted (Voltaire moment) but she saw how going out of their way to piss someone off wasn't the same, and this seemed to be what could be interpreted.


The presenter mentioned he had spoken to a friend who was a Muslim; and he explained that non Muslims cannot understand that their prophet comes above their wife and kids (Something I personally find impossible to justify on any level), and so any affront to their prophet is felt as emotionally deeply as (I'm guessing) non Muslims would react to an insult to their spouses/ kids/ family etc. 


One English woman who lives about 50 miles from Paris said the town is staunchly conservative; (They voted against gay marriage) but that the C H tragedy had sparked the town (Not a big C H readership) into being right behind the paper and queuing to buy a copy. Some newsagents were reporting they sold out within three minutes of opening. Tonight on the radio, it was reported that the print run was 5 million, so presumably that decision was made when it became clear they'd be sold.


I think the place is an a state of flux right now, it will settle, but it'll take time.

[FightTheFuture]

Isn't that story about 25 years old,. We Christians always want to play the "We get offended too" card but when our best example is something that happened a quarter of a century ago. I guess we don't have it too bad in recent times. If it such a regular occurrence for Christians than why is Serrano piece constantly reference, I would guess it stood out because it was so uniquely offensive.

I have no problem with satire of any religion, but it usually in a form of a satire magazine or show/cartoon. But there seems to be as push/questioning why aren't these Muslim caricatures in mainstream or news publication.

How often do we ever see mocking portrayal of Jesus in front of a newspaper just for commentary sake (we do see it a lot in comedy and satire but not serious news outlets) I can't even imagine seeing WW2 German propaganda anti-Jewish style caricatures in any newspaper or magazine cover today. It would never make it to a newsstand, and for good reason.

Charlie Hebdo is not what one might refer to as, a serious news outlet. None-the-less, the quaint little newspaper has, in the past, openly satirized ALL religions. It`s just never been an issue until the prophet muhammad was depicted in a less than flattering manner.


There should be absolutely no conversation what-so-ever as to whether it should be permissible, or not, for any person or entity to portray anybody or anything in any derisive manner they see fit. Complete and absolute freedom of speech must remain unabridged and preserved at all cost.

[Yorkshire pud]

Charlie Hebdo is not what one might refer to as, a serious news outlet. None-the-less, the quaint little newspaper has, in the past, openly satirized ALL religions. It`s just never been an issue until the prophet muhammad was depicted in a less than flattering manner.

Well actually it has been an issue with all the major religions. It probably explains why their circulation was until this weeks issue around the 60000 mark. Their Raison d'être is to basically be the beligerant teenager pissing anyone and anything off. They openly admit to taking crass to new lows. 

There should be absolutely no conversation what-so-ever as to whether it should be permissible, or not, for any person or entity to portray anybody or anything in any derisive manner they see fit. Complete and absolute freedom of speech must remain unabridged and preserved at all cost.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean being able to say absolutely anything without reaping the consequences; try saying anything you like about particularly litigious individuals for example.

[Eddie Coyle]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean being able to say absolutely anything without reaping the consequences; try saying anything you like about particularly litigious individuals for example.

     Reported. And I want damages for the effort I put into this post.

[Yorkshire pud]

     Reported. And I want damages for the effort I put into this post.

To save you the trouble of securing a lawyer; my damages offering runs to a small collection of small denomination coinage (Sterling) and a pickled egg (Duck egg)

[Eddie Coyle]

To save you the trouble of securing a lawyer; my damages offering runs to a small collection of small denomination coinage (Sterling) and a pickled egg (Duck egg)

     Throw in 3 Libyan Dinars and you have a deal.

[Yorkshire pud]

     Throw in 3 Libyan Dinars and you have a deal.

Wow, never has diverting punitive damages been so straightforward, and all feelings not hurt. 

[Gd5150]

I'm uncomfortable with going out of my way to insult religious people, but a lot of people find great sport in it.

Those who were raised Catholic certainly do. Wonder why.  :

[Eddie Coyle]

Wow, never has diverting punitive damages been so straightforward, and all feelings not hurt. 

      Luckily for you, I was absent for the torts section of those Business Law courses I took. But it does help me maintain my spartan existence. 

[VtaGeezer]

I find it amazing that anyone would defend Obama in this case, when the administration itself admitted that it was wrong.

If you're responding to my comment, I was the first to point out that the WH admitted that they blew it with regard to the Paris march.  I'm merely saying that when it comes to Obama and the righties, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

[albrecht]

Well actually it has been an issue with all the major religions. It probably explains why their circulation was until this weeks issue around the 60000 mark. Their Raison d'être is to basically be the beligerant teenager pissing anyone and anything off. They openly admit to taking crass to new lows. 

Freedom of speech doesn't mean being able to say absolutely anything without reaping the consequences; try saying anything you like about particularly litigious individuals for example.

Yes it does (at least it should.) If an offense there are civil remedies (or, increasingly, criminal penalties.) Many centuries of Common Law and statute law for these cases. In our country, though going the anti-civilrights way of UK,  prior restraint is prohibited but clear precendence for torts (and these days for some criminal for 'terror' or 'hate' likely.)

[Kelt]

So if we should be able to say whatever we want, holocaust denial shouldn't be a crime.

[PB the Deplorable]

... The presenter mentioned he had spoken to a friend who was a Muslim; and he explained that non Muslims cannot understand that their prophet comes above their wife and kids..., and so any affront to their prophet is...

This is not compatible with Western society.  It just isn't. 

It's a mistake to be allowing huge number of Muslims to emigrate to our country.

... One English woman who lives about 50 miles from Paris said the town is staunchly conservative; (They voted against gay marriage)...

Is everyone against gay marriage automatically 'staunchly conservative'?

So if we should be able to say whatever we want, holocaust denial shouldn't be a crime.

It's not against the law in the US. 

But we do have other politically correct prohibited speech - in various government buildings and on various university campuses.  The most 'liberal' agencies and schools have the most 'speech' rules.

[Yorkshire pud]

This is not compatible with Western society.  It just isn't. 

It's a mistake to be allowing huge number of Muslims to emigrate to our country.

I said above I couldn't see justification for it.

Is everyone against gay marriage automatically 'staunchly conservative'?

No idea. I was quoting her. I suppose living there she knows the landscape.

There is an irony with certain French politicians proclaiming the right to sayig what you want; they have incredibly tight privacy laws that forbid the press publishing almost anything potentially damaging to a UK or US politician. There would be no Clinton/ Lewinski esque salacious story in the French press for example.

[WOTR]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean being able to say absolutely anything without reaping the consequences; try saying anything you like about particularly litigious individuals for example.

Yes and no... It means that the paper reaps the consequences of lower readership and less advertising dollars... It does not mean that the editors get shot.


I consider myself a christian and I will look at purposely offensive cartoons, artwork and read offensive "drivel" (what is written strictly to offend.)  The thing is that I can think for myself and some of it is fair criticism (even if I do not care for the form.)  While I may not care for the form it takes, at least some of it makes a point that may need to be made.


There is absolutely no reason for anybody to be forced to not offend any group (including those that I belong to.)  Yes, I have a preference for open, honest, respectful dialogue- and I may avoid particularly abrasive people and I may not subscribe to this paper.  With that said, I also disagree with anti hate speech laws.  If you want to publish crap and show your ignorance- go ahead.  You will only attract like minded individuals and others will openly mock you.


This act (or suing, or drawing massive attention to a publication or an individual) only puts them in the spotlight.  How many people had heard of this publication before last week?  Now they will sell out 5 million copies and undoubtedly end up with tens of hundreds of thousands of new subscribers.


I was just reading about the "Streisand effect"  (apparently now celebrating the tenth anniversary of the coining of the term.)  I find it hard to believe that people have not learned anything in the decade since that term was first used. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150107/13292829624/10-years-everyones-been-using-streisand-effect-without-paying-now-im-going-to-start-issuing-takedowns.shtml

[WOTR]

Batshit crazy David Cameron: If government can't snoop on it, you shouldn't be allowed to use it

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/13/technology/security/cameron-messaging-data/index.html

He is a moron and out of touch with reality.  My guess is that he may know what he is proposing is impossible... but it sounds good to his base.


I have put "redphone" and text secure on my android as well as a tor browser on it (and route through a VPN.)  That is just the phone- and I have no real reason to even attempt to make my communications secure (I use redphone to call my sister sometimes or my nieces... there is no plotting to blow people up or assassinate anybody.) 


I guarantee that there are services these people use that are secure and no amount of on government declaring them "illegal" is going to stop them.  (No, I am not saying it is futile and to give up... but stop being stupid and treating the electorate like mentally slow children...)

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes and no... It means that the paper reaps the consequences of lower readership and less advertising dollars... It does not mean that the editors get shot.


I consider myself a christian and I will look at purposely offensive cartoons, artwork and read offensive "drivel" (what is written strictly to offend.)  The thing is that I can think for myself and some of it is fair criticism (even if I do not care for the form.)  While I may not care for the form it takes, at least some of it makes a point that may need to be made.


There is absolutely no reason for anybody to be forced to not offend any group (including those that I belong to.)  Yes, I have a preference for open, honest, respectful dialogue- and I may avoid particularly abrasive people and I may not subscribe to this paper.  With that said, I also disagree with anti hate speech laws.  If you want to publish crap and show your ignorance- go ahead.  You will only attract like minded individuals and others will openly mock you.


This act (or suing, or drawing massive attention to a publication or an individual) only puts them in the spotlight.  How many people had heard of this publication before last week?  Now they will sell out 5 million copies and undoubtedly end up with tens of hundreds of thousands of new subscribers.


I was just reading about the "Streisand effect"  (apparently now celebrating the tenth anniversary of the coining of the term.)  I find it hard to believe that people have not learned anything in the decade since that term was first used. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150107/13292829624/10-years-everyones-been-using-streisand-effect-without-paying-now-im-going-to-start-issuing-takedowns.shtml

I agree with all of that; all I was pointing out was although Voltaire had it right with his oft quoted comment, from a legal standpoint it is often the case that the bigger wallet wins. If you can see it over the pond, watch this weeks 'Panorama' TV programme. They interviewed Muslims of 'liberal' and 'conservative' persuations. Muslims recorded 'Happy' and posted it on YT. The vile scorn they got from the hard line Muslims was frankly frightening. The moderate one's are pissed that they're having to field contempt and hatred from all angles, including other alleged Muslims (terrorists) who would kill them as well as non Muslims.

[FightTheFuture]

So if we should be able to say whatever we want, holocaust denial shouldn't be a crime.

Of course it shouldn`t.

[WildCard]

I agree with all of that; all I was pointing out was although Voltaire had it right with his oft quoted comment, from a legal standpoint it is often the case that the bigger wallet wins. If you can see it over the pond, watch this weeks 'Panorama' TV programme. They interviewed Muslims of 'liberal' and 'conservative' persuations. Muslims recorded 'Happy' and posted it on YT. The vile scorn they got from the hard line Muslims was frankly frightening. The moderate one's are pissed that they're having to field contempt and hatred from all angles, including other alleged Muslims (terrorists) who would kill them as well as non Muslims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-0_UkJnS8Y
Good show. Thanx for the heads-up, Pud.

[Delphi]

Nice thanks for the link

[Delphi]

NEW HOSTAGE FOOTAGE
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=869_1420833044

[NowhereInTime]

I think it should be obvious is that the French, those fey would-be imperialists of old, who have tried to exert back channel worldly influence (mostly by acting contrary to US interests) would now realize they cannot appease or control the monster of Islamic fascism. 


They need to get off the sidelines and start fighting it with the rest of the civilized world.


Still pissed about them outing Stuxnet.

[NowhereInTime]

Is everyone against gay marriage automatically 'staunchly conservative'?

Yes.  Intolerance by its very definition is a conservative attribute.

[PB the Deplorable]

Yes.  Intolerance by its very definition is a conservative attribute.

Are you sure?

Because if I remember correctly, you said you identified the young charismatic Senator from Illinois very early in the campaign for the 2008 Democrat Presidential nomination - to support and campaign for.  At that very same time, Barack Obama was quite clear in his opposition to gay 'marriage'. 

In fact he snubbed the mayor of San Francisco multiple times - the man who kicked this whole thing off by issuing 'marriage' licenses to gays at the San Francisco County Clerks Office - over this very issue.  Obama refused to be photographed or even seen with Mayor Gavin Newsome during the entire campaign, and he had many chances because he visited San Francisco often to raise funds.

The rift between the Obama and Newsome tribes within the Democrat Party that started then remains to this day.

It wasn't until a Biden gaffe in 2012 forced the issue, and it seemed like Obama felt he had no choice but to come out in favor of gay 'marriage'.  For political expediency when put on the spot by his VP.


Keep in mind this is a person who chose Rev Jeremiah Wright as a mentor.  Rev Wright is an angry man who apparently hates anyone who is not like him.  Since Barak was against gay 'marriage', almost surely he and Rev Wright were in agreement.  Almost certainly he still opposes it personally. 

Even if he is all for it now on a personal level now, how is it you could have supported a person like this back in 2008 - and continued that support into 2012 before he 'changed his mind' - given your views and comments above?